Survey Finds Rogue Agents Operating in Half of UK Local Markets

A survey of some 537 agents across the country has found that rogue agents are believed to be active in half of local housing markets. The finding will unsettle an industry that has spent years lobbying for tighter oversight, and it lands at a moment when buyers, sellers, landlords and tenants are all more exposed than usual to the consequences of poor practice in a market still working through the aftershocks of higher borrowing costs and tighter affordability checks.

For UK property investors, the significance of this finding goes well beyond reputational embarrassment for the lettings and estate agency sector. Rogue operators, whether unlicensed, unregulated or simply non-compliant with existing codes of conduct, distort local markets in ways that are difficult for outsiders to detect. They can mishandle client money, misrepresent property conditions, fail to protect deposits correctly, or simply vanish when problems arise. In a market where transaction values are high and trust between parties is essential, even a localised concentration of bad actors can undermine confidence in an entire area, affecting pricing, transaction speed and the willingness of buyers and tenants to commit.

The fact that the survey found rogue activity present in half of local markets, rather than confined to a handful of outlier regions, suggests this is a structural issue rather than an isolated problem. That matters for how the industry and policymakers respond. A localised problem might be tackled through targeted enforcement in specific towns or cities. A problem spread across half the country points instead towards systemic gaps in regulation, licensing and enforcement capacity, gaps that have long been flagged by professional bodies representing legitimate agents who compete against operators not bound by the same standards.

The implications differ sharply depending on which side of the transaction a market participant sits. Buy-to-let landlords, particularly those managing property at a distance or relying heavily on agents for day-to-day management, face the greatest exposure. A rogue managing agent can mishandle rent collection, neglect statutory compliance on safety certificates, or fail to protect tenant deposits, leaving the landlord legally and financially liable even where they were unaware of the failure. First-time buyers and tenants, meanwhile, are often the least equipped to identify a rogue agent before signing a contract or handing over a deposit, making them disproportionately vulnerable to the practices this survey highlights. Commercial investors and developers typically work with larger, more established agency networks and so carry comparatively lower direct exposure, though they are not immune where local market intelligence is sourced from smaller, less scrutinised firms.

Regionally, the finding that rogue activity spans half of local markets implies that no part of the country should consider itself immune. Fast-moving markets with high transaction volumes, such as those around London and Surrey, as well as regional hubs including Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle, all present conditions in which agents under pressure to close deals quickly can be tempted to cut corners. In cities where rental demand significantly outstrips supply, tenants under pressure to secure a property quickly are especially susceptible to being rushed past proper checks by agents operating outside accepted standards. PropertyNews analysis suggests that areas experiencing the fastest rental or sales growth are precisely those where vigilance against rogue practice needs to be highest, since competitive pressure among both agents and consumers tends to erode the patience needed to verify credentials and conduct.

Looking ahead to the next six to twelve months, this survey is likely to add weight to calls for stronger regulation of property agents, a debate that has rumbled on in Westminster for years without a definitive legislative resolution. Investors and landlords should treat the findings as a prompt to review how they select and monitor agents, checking membership of recognised redress and client money protection schemes rather than assuming all agents operate to the same standard. For first-time buyers and tenants, the practical takeaway is to verify an agent's credentials before engaging, rather than after a problem emerges. Should policymakers respond to survey evidence of this kind with firmer licensing requirements, compliant agents stand to benefit from a levelling of the competitive field, while the clearest losers will be the rogue operators the survey has identified as still active across half the country's local markets.