Estate Agents' Application Types Missing

I refer to the post on 10th Jan 2011 of '125 estate agents' application types missing' This reflects how unready the Council of Estate Agencies(CEA) is, to take on the role as a regulator. Yes, of course, the simple way out of saying it is in a 'teething' stage or 'human error'. If the method(technologies, human resource, administration, clarity of guidelines etc) at CEA is not ready, why take on the baton? For a lot a lot more details, you ought to spend a check out to: Immobilienmakler München

Although the government agency acknowledged troubles such as missing types and registration delays, and apologised for the inconvenience triggered. The CEA also stated that 'as a gesture of goodwill', 813 of 1,736 property agents whose applications are pending approval can act provisionally till the finish of this month. This is not a gesture of goodwill, but, to cover or compensate the mistake. 'A gesture of goodwill' does not come in this form.

Apart from the misplacement of application forms, there are chunks of inconsistency and enormous confusion designed ever considering that CEA takes over from 22nd October 2010. There are agencies and their agents received licence validity period of just 2 years whilst other agencies and their agents receiving three years of validity period. Why is this so? What is the basis? Why is this not mentioned in the application form?

Some agents who received a two year licence validity period obtained the CEHA(Typical Examination for Housing Agents) certificate, which is, far a lot more challenging than the CES(Common Examination for Salespersons) and CEA(Certified Estate Agent Examination).

Other inconsistencies, loopholes and confusion such as the following guidelines, stipulated by CEA on page 19, third schedule, form 1 of the ESTATE AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY

Rule four which permits the customers an choice not to pay GST is shocking. This permits customers an excuse not to pay GST. It ought to indicate, 'Payment of GST is mandatory to GST registered agencies'.

Element b of this rule also states that, seller has no obligation pay any commission to the Estate Agent if completion of the Property transaction falls via without fault on the portion of the Seller.' The seller should spend half of the deposit that the buyer produced, in the event the transaction does not complete, as the agent has secured the deposit.

Rule 6(b) indicates that the Estate Agent has an alternative not to co-broke, which signifies, entirely contradicts its 'no dual representation rule.

If CEA is so adamant on the rule of 'No Dual Representation' and that, agents representing buyers and tenants ought to get commission from the buyers and tenants, CEA, please, then officially legalise and educate the public that buyers and tenants are to commission their representing agents.

Last, but, really, undoubtedly not the least( as there are so several other inconsistencies and loopholes found in the rules). Would CEA please be on the ground and really realize the nuts of bolts of the business prior to setting totally unpractical guidelines! For much a lot more data, you ought to spend a pay a visit to to: Immobilienmakler München