Schedule
6
Estate
Agents Redress
Schemes
Lorely
Burt:
I beg to move amendment No. 23, in
schedule 6, page 62, line 29, leave
out may and insert
shall.
The
amendment is another rehearsal of discussions that we have previously
had and would strengthen the demand upon the Secretary of State, who is
not required to do any of the things in the schedule. The argument is
in a sense tautological: we wish him to be required to undertake the
matters referred
to.
The
Chairman:
Order. Amendment proposed, in schedule 6, page
62, line 29, leave out may and insert
shall.
Stephen
Pound:
I apologise for my premature rising, Mr.
Weir.
The hon.
Ladys amendment has stimulated me to delve deep within the
entrails of proposed newsection 23A(1) of the Estate Agents
Act 1979, particularly the use of the word complaints.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister responds, will he comment on
third-party complaints? I raise thatpoint because, like many
Members, I am constantly approached by aggrieved constituents
complaining about the proliferation of sale boards. In many cases,
there is a veritable forest of them.
I have discovered that, in a
number of cases, estate agents place boards on properties in which they
currently have no interest but may at some stage. Inmy
constituency, on the corner of Ruislip road and Rectory Park avenue,
there is an absolute forest of boards, providing a windbreak if anyone
happens to be playing football behind it. If one wishes to complain,
there is no obvious direct first or second-party complainant, because
the boards are on the corner of the road, so we come to a stage at
which there must be a third-party
complainant.
My
public-spirited constituent, Tessa West, has drawn to my attention a
problem in Queens walk in
Ealing, where an estate agent has placed a board outside a property on
the assumption that they may have an interest in disposing of that
property at some point in the future. Like all people of good will, I
look to my right hon. Friend the Minister to resolve such problems in
the style for which he is so well known.
I should like to discover
whether there is some way in which we can consider third-party
complaints, particularly in respect of sale boards. I have pursued such
a case through the small claims court, and I was told that the damage
done to a property by the affixation of a sale board was so minimal
that there could be no claim in law. The estate agent was then required
to take down the board within 21 days, which gave them 21 days of free
advertising.
In such
a massive industryagency charges in England and Wales are about
£3 billion a yearthere is inevitably great pressure on
estate agents to get their name into the public domain. I am concerned
that in some cases, keen and hungry estate agents, who are not
necessarily unscrupulous, use the entirely legitimate sale board in an
illegitimate way.
When my right hon. Friend sums
up, will he offer some comfort to the many people, such as my
constituent, Tessa West, and, I am sure, many hon. and right hon.
Members, who suffer in that way and do not see an obvious remedy? Local
government planning law does not apply, because a board is a temporary
structure. There appears to be some size regulation in the industry, so
it is not as though estate agents produce massive billboards, which
could be a hazard under highway legislation. Such use of sale boards is
certainly a nuisance, however; it is sharp practice and something that
we could address, even though in the grand scheme of things, it may
seem small
potatoes.
Mr.
David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): The hon.
Gentleman makes a useful point, but I have one concern with the
direction in which his argument is
running. In my constituency, for example, local primary schools
advertise their fairs in conjunction with local estate agents.
Throughout the village in which I live, Chorley Wood, one sees what
appear to be estate agent boards that are in fact advertising fairs for
local primary schools. That is quite helpful to those schools; I am
sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to suggest anything that
would make such advertising more difficult.
Stephen
Pound:
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important
point. In my constituency, Robertson Smith Kempson, an admirable estate
agent, supports Hobbayne primary school, which is an excellent school
round the corner from where I live. We are delighted to have those
notice boards up for a couple of days. My concern is that when, as in
one case, there are 11 different sale boards clustered outside an
obviously not very desirable
property
Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): Next door to
you.
Stephen
Pound:
I am actually referring to my property.
That brings not into disrepute
not only the profession, but the activities of those public-spirited
school governors who are trying to make a few bob for their school
fete. This issue has become more than an irritant, and I see no
sanction or redress in law, because compliance normally carries a
21-day time frame, which is beneficial to the advertisers. I finish by
looking with hope and expectation to my right hon. Friend the Minister,
who never disappoints, and I am sure that he will not do so on this
occasion.
Debate
adjourned.[Steve
McCabe.]
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve oclock, till
this day at Four
oclock.
|