Unlawful agency charge?

neverdespairgirl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I think you would be right as long as you can make out that the particular website is not a newspaper or a shop.

To me, it looks like the Act was intended to thwart agents who demand kickbacks for acting as gateway to property to the detriment of landlords and aspiring tenants alike.

I think they hold themselves out as a lot more than just a newspaper (etc).

In their "about us" section they say:

"SpareRoom was launched in 2004 as a national version of intoLondon.com, the first flatshare site in London. Launched in 1999, intoLondon was inspired by our struggle to find accommodation when we first moved to London. Since then the SpareRoom network has grown from strength to strength and in 2004 launched the much talked about phenomenon of Speed Flatmating - a new way to find flatmates based on the speed dating concept. SpareRoom continues to innovate with some exciting new services on the horizon to help you find your new flatmates... watch this space!"

DVardysShadow

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I think they hold themselves out as a lot more than just a newspaper (etc).

In their "about us" section they say:

"SpareRoom was launched in 2004 as a national version of intoLondon.com, the first flatshare site in London. Launched in 1999, intoLondon was inspired by our struggle to find accommodation when we first moved to London. Since then the SpareRoom network has grown from strength to strength and in 2004 launched the much talked about phenomenon of Speed Flatmating - a new way to find flatmates based on the speed dating concept. SpareRoom continues to innovate with some exciting new services on the horizon to help you find your new flatmates... watch this space!"

Perhaps they ought to watch their innovation?

From a 'commercial ethics' point of view, I can't see much wrong with it. They are obviously trying to make their advertising medium more successful by assembling house share clients into joint tenancy packages. It is sailing close to the wind, but as long as they

• don't take money for achieving a let
• don't provide speed flatmating clients with access to letting adverts on favourable terms - even by a microsecond

they are probably in the clear. But the more I think about the games which could be played with this, the less I like it.

tbs624

Jowo's source appears to be
http://forums.gumtree.com/viewtopic_f_1_t_204971_INTERLET

Yorkie1

DVS refers to subs. (4) but my interpretation of that clause means it's not an offence for the website / shop / displayer to charge money to the person wanting to advertise - i.e. to charge money in consideration of the display etc. Therefore I don't think that subs. is relevant to the question of whether they can charge someone subsequently before providing the details of adverts.

What caught my eye is s.1(1)(b) - cannot charge a fee for supplying an enquirer with details of addresses etc.

If spareroom is not making appointments etc as was in fact the case outlined in Jowo's posts, but is merely acting as the shop window in which the LL's 'postcard' is being displayed for a T to take details and then approach LL direct, then the situation can be distinguished in my opinion.

Getting Trading Standards to act on it is, though, a different matter as previously described.