Mandatory regulation urged to stamp out rogue estate agents

"We don't believe the Consumers' Association's views differ greatly from our views on this," a spokesman said. "We are both calling for the Estate Agents Act to be strengthened."

Peter Bolton King, the chief executive of the NAEA, said its members largely supported Which?'s conclusion that the OFT's recommendations "lacked teeth".

He said the NAEA had "consistently campaigned" for improved regulation, and that consumers who bought and sold through the association's members were protected under its own code of practice.

False claims, double fees and money for nothing

Three cases in the Which? report illustrate the weakness of existing legislation:

Alan Syrett, from New Romney in Kent

After what he called an "appalling" series of problems with his estate agent, Ward and Partners, Mr Syrett decided he was going to challenge their claim to a commission of £3,600 plus VAT.

Poor service and what he believed were a host of breaches of the Estate Agents Act angered him so much he tried to negotiate a lower fee, but soon received notification that legal proceedings had been issued against him.

It transpired, however, that the agent had sent a letter falsely claiming that proceedings had begun.

Which? passed on the false paperwork to Canterbury county court which wrote to Ward and Partners, warning them their action was illegal. The agent has since issued formal legal proceedings and Mr Syrett is awaiting confirmation of a court date.

Alannah Hunt

Switching from one estate agent to another should have been a simple and cost-free process for Alannah Hunt, but it ended up costing her £38,000 in fees because an agent failed to provide her with a vital piece of information.

Ms Hunt had initially instructed Winkworths to sell her house in September 2000, but after only one offer came in, she informed them she would be switching to rival FPD Savills.

Soon after, she accepted an offer for her property of £875,000 through Savills, paid the £20,000 fee it charged, and moved out. Five months later, she received a letter from Winkworths demanding a fee of £18,000.

Winkworths claimed it had introduced the buyer, so was contractually entitled to a finder's fee. Ms Hunt had no idea that Winkworths had anything to do with the person who had bought her home.

What she says Savills omitted to tell her was that it had found the buyer's name on a list of those who had viewed her property with Winkworths, giving that agent a claim to a finder's fee.

Angela Hill and John McCleod from Grantham, Lincolnshire

Angela Hill and John McCleod appointed the Halifax as the sole agent to sell their flat in Grantham. Their agreement included a clause which stated that, should they find their own buyer, the Halifax would not be entitled to any fees.

So, when the couple did sell their property for £45,000 without the Halifax's help, they were more than a bit shocked when it started to hound them for a fee of £750 plus costs for a service it had not provided.

The couple decided to challenge the claims to a fee and went to the Consumers' Association for help. It pointed out that their sole agency agreement clearly stated that they were entitled to sell their property privately without incurring any fees.

After the association's lawyers intervened on the couple's behalf, the Halifax withdrew its demands.