Attempted intimidation by a PLC or fair comment?

05/09/2017 UPDATE: Another independent agent has been sent a heavyweight lawyers letter by Purplebricks demanding they stop making public statements regarding certain trading practices and insisting they refrain from asking Purplebricks to substantiate claims they have made in public. This letter, like mine, was timed to arrive late on a Friday evening and demanded immediate action, to ensure maximum worry by the recipient.

You may wish to read other related blogs in conjunction with this
Purplebricks and the case of the regulators who won’t

It is quite right and proper that every company and individual is entitled to protect its interests if it believes it has been misrepresented, libelled or slandered. It is also the case that some companies use the law to silence journalists, the public or competitors who are asking awkward questions or making perfectly fair and reasonable complaints which the company were rather not aired.

It is quite right and proper that every company and individual is entitled to protect its interests if it believes it has been misrepresented, libelled or slandered. It is also the case that some companies use the law to silence journalists, the public or competitors who are asking awkward questions or making perfectly fair and reasonable complaints which the company were rather not aired.

What follows below is the edited and redacted (for legal reasons) correspondence between Schillings solicitors, acting on behalf of Purplebricks PLC following a range of questions and statements posed asking, what I honestly believed at the time and continue to believe, were pertinent, reasonable and in the public interest.

These questions followed a series of claims and statements made by Mr Michael Bruce CEO of Purplebricks PLC and the PLC itself in its marketing (some of which have since been declared misleading by The ASA).

The email, from one of the UKs’ leading specialists in this form of litigation, was sent at close of business on a Friday night and required a response within a matter of hours over the weekend.

In my opinion now, and at the time, the timing and tone were clearly intended to cause panic and worry in any small business or individual without out of hours access to high power barristers and the funding with which to respond. The reader may reasonably believe otherwise and should draw their own conclusions.

For a number of reasons and life experiences, I don’t respond to threats (real or imagined) in the way the average person responds . On this occasion, therefore, decided to do what my conditioning and training in the Light Infantry had taught me to do when ambushed by a significantly more powerful adversary. Turn towards the threat and fight back with the maximum force proportionate to the circumstances.

That I have to date received no further response to my reply confirms, I believe, that this was a simple act of bullying and intimidation by a PLC embarrassed and worried at the points being made and the questions being asked. However, I would ask that the reader looks at the following exchange and reads it conjunction with other posts I have written that relate to this matter and form their own conclusion.

Purplebricks what is really going on

Is my expert local or even an expert? How do I check?

From Schillings 

(My original response is included in quotes and italics, preceded by ‘CW’)

Our Ref: MB/CW

20 January 2017


Dear Sir

Purplebricks Group PLC

We act for Purplebricks Group PLC (“Purplebricks”).

We write in relation to a series of allegations you have made about our client using the Twitter handle @PDQProperty and on your Twitter page, which is accessible at the following URL: (the “Twitter Feed”).

We set out below a number of defamatory statements that have been made about our client via your Twitter Feed, this is by no means an exhaustive list:

  • “Good morning @purplebricks still no explanation for customers or PURP investors on @LSEplc why you made false claims during your IPO” (14 January 2016)

CW – Purplebricks (PB) stated pre-IPO that all of their LPEs were “qualified”. This was a knowingly false statement by PB.

It is reasonable for the public, investors and other businesses expecting to compete with PB on a fair and level playing field that this meant the LPEs’ held industry specific, nationally recognised qualifications such as the Diploma, certificate or NVQ in estate agency from awarding body the NAEA/ NFoPP. There is an exchange of emails between myself and Mr Bruce (which you have presumably been shown), that confirms Mr Bruce knew that the majority of PB LPEs did not hold any such qualifications whatsoever. Furthermore, at that time and since, the recruitment section of the PB website continues to make it clear that qualifications are desirable but not essential.


  • “Two questions @PurplebricksUK. How many times have you claimed this as a ‘new listing’ to your investors & other potential sellers? @LSEplc” [Property listing attached] (2 November 2016)

CW – This is a reasonable question based on ample screenshot evidence held on file and made available to The National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, The Property Ombudsman Scheme, as well as data collected on a daily basis by Rummage4, that demonstrates PB have relisted many, many properties.

PB acknowledged they had audited a number of properties following a report in The Times in August of 2016 and confirmed that they allowed their clients to list and re-list properties at will without PB ensuring the adverts complied with Consumer Protection Regulations as is required in statute and by The Property Ombudsman Scheme code of practice. In doing so, I believe it is reasonable to contend that PB are in clear breach of the CPR and TPOS, as well as its contract with Rightmove and Zoopla, giving them an unfair advantage over other law-abiding businesses.

  • “#Purplebricks investors take Let alone that many LPEs’ trading without required legal redress, money laundering registration etc.” (4 November 2016)

CW -It is a statement of fact that none of PBs’ self-employed LPEs were members of a redress scheme prior to June 2016 and, certainly not prior to the IPO. This is illegal. That some have since joined, is not contested.

It is a requirement that all businesses engaged in estate agency must register for money laundering

  • “ [Retweet of REDACTED to @PDQ Property: reasonable arbitration fees willing paid by a tenant client to negotiate a tenancy with the landlord client costs split 50/50] @PDQ Property: Genius! However, I’d rather we simply had better enforcement of rogue agents” (25 November 2016)
  • “@rightmove @zoopla can you confirm that you checked all of @PurplebricksUK s LPEs complied with current legal requirements before listing?” (8 December 2016)

CW – Rightmove have a contractual obligation with all of its customers and with the public who use the site expecting, agents who are advertising on the site to go through a vetting process to ensure that they have met all of the requirements to work legally within estate agency.

By allowing LPEs who were not members of a redress scheme onto the site, Rightmove had failed in its contractual duty and this was and remains a perfectly valid question.

PB had every opportunity to respond to that and previous, similar statements at the time and, provide evidence to the contrary taking appropriate action against me and other persons who had raised similar concerns.

  • “@PurplebricksUK Can you confirm that all of your LPEs were members of an approved redress scheme, & with @ICOnews &HMRC prior to June? 1/2” (8 December 2016)

CW – PB have not and cannot confirm this for the reasons been stated above. I believe this to be fair comment.

  • “@PurplebricksUK Can you also confirm that all of your LPEs are currently registered with @ICOnews and @HRCgovuk for money laundering?” (8 December 2016)
  • “@TheMarkSadler @naea_uk @PurplebricksUK The law is clear. All agents must belong to a recognised redress Not to do so is an offence” (9 January 2017)

CW – This is self -evidential true

  • Did @naea_uk really endorse @PurplebricksUK for transparency? *Blocked Facebook reviews *Threatens press with libel over LPEs legal status” (9 January 2017)

CW – It is factually correct that PB has taken down reviews on its Facebook page which were predominantly less than complimentary and, in some cases, alleged illegal activity by PB.

I am aware that PB has used similar legal threats (such as the one I am responding to here) to silence mainstream, broadsheet media and professional journals for publishing questions and statements that state factual information that PB does not like.

This is not, in my opinion or, I would contend, that of any reasonable person, the way a business conducts itself with transparency.

  • Currently trying to help one VERY frightened lady who says she is being threatened by a loan company working for a well-known PLC agent.” (12 January 2017)

CW – This was factually correct. The PLC is not mentioned however, I have a fully evidenced transcript (screenshot etc.) of the conversation with the lady concerned prior to her receiving a call from a senior person within that PLC and being threatened with legal action if she did not withdraw all comments that she had published on Twitter stating that she had unknowingly been signed up to a loan agreement as well as allegedly having her statutory 14 day cooling off period ignored.

Prior to stating that she could no longer discuss the issue with anyone, the lady stated she was “terrified” at what this company was threatening to do to her legally and had had to take the cowards way out.

If PB wishes to associate itself with this despicable and cowardly behaviour by the, as yet, unnamed PLC publicly in court, that is a matter for it and its advisors.

  • “Hilarious but have missed off choosing a DIY agent where you pay £1k up front but only have a 14% chance of selling” (15 January 2017)[CW1]

CW- This, again, is factually correct statement based on a report by an internationally renowned investment companies analyst.

Furthermore, independent data collected since that date, shows that PB do not complete on 88% of all transactions as publicly stated by Mr Bruce on BBCs’ MoneyBox programme but, more likely, less than 25%.

Again, PB have had ample opportunity to set the record straight or take action against me and others prior to this point in time.

  • (12) “Another person contacted me to say online agent has unknowingly signed when up to a loan agreement and is refusing to allow them to cancel” [Image] (20 January 2017)
  • (13)[Retweet of Trustpilot review]  @PurplebricksUK What address would you like the hundreds of ‘anomalies’ we’ve found sent to?You? @ntseat? @TPOmb? (20 January 2017)

CW – I was looking to assist PB following what I took to be a request for information allowing them to identify potentially misleading adverts.

  • (14)“[Retweet Michael Bruce: @JJGiheany @PurplebricksUK Sorry to hear that. I am new to this so bear with me and I will do what I can”] “ Property Expert” (20 January 2017)

CW – I suggest Mr Bruce develops a sense of humour. However, I also contend that as the CEO of a PLC that has set up an operation whereby the majority of its’ alleged ‘experts’ are not registered for mandatory redress schemes says that it is reasonable to call into question with a tongue in cheek comment in the spirit of #Commisery aimed at agents such as myself that his personal expertise may should be lampooned


CW – I believed the statement made in ‘15’ was a fair one to make at the time given the legal status of LPEs prior to June 2016 and their status within HMRC and ICO etc. However, I felt it reasonable to withdraw the tweet.

‘16’ I contend that the statement made by PB is utterly baseless and is, in conjunction with other defamatory statements about agents with different business models such as myself offensive. Asking whether they were trading REDACTED was, as has been stated above, a fair and reasonable question to pose. However, I chose to withdraw it.

(together, the “Tweets”).

In addition, we write in relation to a complaint to the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team (“NTSEAT”) about our client and comments made on this by you to the publication, Estate Agent Today (“EAT”). On 8 December 2016 EAT published an Article online, in which you were quoted as accusing our client of the following:


CW – The post and my comments were withdrawn and an apology was issued as soon as was practicable. No action or contact was made by PB at the time.

I have evidence that shows properties advertised by PB have been regularly withdrawn, and re-marketed as ‘new in’ or had their status changed many times over a very short period which fits the definition of portal juggling.

Such activity, if proven, is clearly disadvantaging agents who do not undertake such activities and who comply with the law of the land in relation to membership of redress schemes, HMRC money laundering, ICO, not falsely advertising qualifications etc. etc. I am aware that the NTSEAT is investigating a number of complaints based on the above.

If an agent claims that all of its’ representatives are qualified when they are not. That is misleading

If an agent allows properties to be listed and advertised as ‘new in’ or under offer’ or sold stc’ when they know this not to be the case; this too is misleading

If an agent uses the statistics gleaned from any misleading advertisements to obtain new business or investment by claiming shorter sale times, a higher percentage of listed properties sold than competing agents or, to appear as if they have listed more properties as new in in a month than they have (thus appearing to be more popular than they are or, potentially, a better investment than might be the case, that is quite rightly, a matter for the NTSEAT to assess and investigate. REDACTED

In addition, we write in relation to a complaint to the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team (“You have also made the following defamatory comments on the Property Industry Eye website:


 (Together, the “Comments”).

The Tweets and Comments contain a number of very serious allegations about our client, including (a) REDACTED (b) that the Local Property Experts (“LPE”) employed by our client are operating REDACTED (c) that our client is REDACTED (d) that the share price REDACTED (e) that there are grounds to believe that REDACTED (f ) that our client engages in REDACTED (the “Allegations”).

Along with the Tweets and Comments, you have constantly posted further tweets and comments about our client in various industry publications, repeating the Allegations and seeking to spread mis-information about our client to the sector.

Falsity of the Allegations

The Allegations are undoubtedly of an extremely grave nature and are not only false but also highly defamatory of our client, such that continued publication would be likely to cause our client serious harm to its reputation, as well as serious financial loss*.

*24/08/2018 – CW – It is of note that in the intervening period since this letter was sent by Schillings, Purplebricks share price gained significantly in value and is still (at the time of writing) over 200 points higher than at the end of January 2017.

Further, the onus is on you as the publisher of the Tweets and Comments to prove the truth of what you have published, as opposed to our client demonstrating they are untrue. In the circumstances, should our client take civil proceedings against you in respect of your sustained campaign against them, you would have to produce to the Court sufficient evidence either or both, orally and in writing, to prove that on the balance of probabilities what you have published about our client is true.

As the publisher, you are liable for the Tweets and Comments and any reasonably foreseeable republications of the Tweets and Comments. Given the seriousness of the Allegations and to whom they are published, the republication of the Tweets and Comments would be reasonably foreseeable.

We deal with each allegation below to put you on notice of the true position.

CW – The statements that I have made which have not been withdrawn immediately and an apology already issued are based on self-evidential information available in the public domain or with the NTSEAT and, can be made public if PB so wishes.

Membership of a Redress Scheme

It is wholly untrue to suggest that our client is acting unlawfully as it does not require its LPEs to have a proper redress scheme in place. All of the LPEs who act for Purplebricks are members of a redress scheme and comply with their relevant codes and regulations. Further, all of the initial and ongoing Purplebricks’ training is conducted in accordance with the rules of The Ombudsman Scheme and The National Association of Estate Agents (“NAEA”). In addition, Purplebricks’ CEO and co-founder, Michael Bruce, has met with both the Ombudsman, Gerry Fitzjohn, recently and the CEO of the NAEA, Mark Hayward (who presented at the Purplebricks Annual Conference 2017) and they work closely together to help increase the standards of the overall industry and transparency of service.

CW – The LPEs who are trading now, may well be members of a redress scheme and I have made it quite clear that I do not dispute that. However, as your own wording suggests, this has not always been the case and your client does not provide any evidence to the contrary. It is self-evident that PB has not complied with all of the codes of the TPOS nor the law prior to its IPO and since as described above.

HMRC Registration

As far as your allegation regarding any alleged failure by our client to ensure that its LPEs are registered with HMRC for money-laundering purposes, we can comment as follows:

1. Our client is registered with HMRC for anti-money laundering purposes and maintains a money laundering policy overseen by its Anti-Money Laundering Officer who is a Solicitor Advocate, a Deputy Money Laundering Officer and a compliance administrator.

2. Given the nature of the engagement and role of self-employed LPEs in the process acting on behalf of Purplebricks, and because our customers operate within the Purplebricks’ platform, as the role of an LPE does not include any access to money or indeed the processing of payments in any way there is no requirement for a separate registration.

3. Notwithstanding this, our client does require registration as a condition of its Licence Agreement with any LPE and is pleased that all of the LPEs do seek to register in any event. In fact during the LPE training every participant logs onto the HMRC website and completes the registration form MLR100, prints off two copies, provides one copy to our client’s Compliance Administrator and is required to complete their registration direct with HMRC. Our client’s Compliance Administrator maintains a full and complete log of every completed registration form for every LPE.

4. We recognise that some of the LPEs do not yet appear on the Supervised Business Register due to applications submitted but returned by HMRC for further information or registrations in process, some of which will be delayed registrations due to reasons such as awaiting company cheque books following incorporation etc. It should be noted that it can take 45 days for an application to appear on the register. An LPE employed by another LPE does not need a separate registration.

5. There is absolutely no commercial advantage to Purplebricks of the LPEs not registering, and similarly no advantage to registration.

The priority and importance which our client places on its anti-money laundering policies and procedures is evidenced in the fact that it has never been the subject of money laundering investigations, issues or complaints in the three years it has been trading.

CW – Whichever way Purplebricks try to angle this, each of their LPEs as a separate entity working within estate agency, has a ststutory responsibility to be registered with HMRC for money laundering.

I am well aware that PB encourages LPEs to canvas friends, family and their local connections to generate more business. These are customers who will come to PB via the LPE and not to the LPE via PB. Consequently, the LPE trading as PB.

Of the scores of LPEs who have been checked on the HMRC website (going back many months (well over the 45 days registration period!) not one is showing on that register. I would also hazard a guess that, if required, the LPEs’ registration dates would not match their start date and, none of the LPEs’ who started trading pre-IPO are yet showing in the register either (In some cases, these people have been LPEs’ since 2013!).

There may be no obvious commercial advantage to not being registered bar a small monetary one for the LPE concerned however, the fact remains that people passing themselves off as ‘experts’ are not REDACTED.

I am aware the HMRC has been made aware of many LPEs not being registered for AML by a number of agents across the UK who feel similarly aggrieved and I would guess that HMRC will report its findings on PB in due course.

ICO Registration

Various Tweets published by you allege that Purplebricks’ LPEs do not comply with their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”); this is incorrect.

Purplebricks as a data controller is registered with the ICO. The individual LPEs are data processors rather than data controllers (as such terms are defined under the DPA). Accordingly, the LPEs are not under any obligation to register with the ICO.

It is our client, rather than the LPEs, that has the contractual relationship with the data subjects whose personal data it collects (e.g. the sellers) and is the entity that is instructed on which particular services the customers require. Throughout the term of the engagement, our client retains control over and determines how and why the personal data that is collected by it (or by LPEs on its behalf) is processed. Any data that is collected by LPEs on behalf of our client is uploaded directly onto our client’s platform. Our client also determines which items of personal data is collected via its online portal, whether to disclose the personal data collected to third parties, and if so, to whom (including to LPEs).

The LPE’s represent our client in performing property valuations etc. and in doing so only process our clients customer’s personal data that they access via our client’s eZie platform (or that they subsequently collect from individuals) on our client’s behalf. They have no authority to use the personal data collected other than as instructed by our client and are not permitted to use the personal data of our client’s customers for any other purpose.

CW – This is at least in part or, possibly, a wholly false statement by your client. PB encourages LPEs’ to canvass their local market and develop new business from personal 2nd and 3rd party contacts within their local area. 

Under the definitions of the ICO, this means they are recording, storing, sharing and processing data in their own right. This requires them to be registered with the ICO for data protection.

24/08/2017 CW – Readers may wish to read this in conjunction with ICO guidance leaflet; in particular section 12, page 5. and page 9 “sub-contractors
UPDATE: 28/08/2017 – PurpleBricks own LPE business agreement confirms that LPes’ are processing data and, thus, ar erequired to register with the ICO: “14.2.1 it is permitted (notified or exempted) or will before the processing commences be permitted under the Data Protection Act 1998 (“The Act”) to process Personal Data to be provided to it under the terms of this Agreement.”
Extract from ICO Data controllers and data processors 20140506 Version: 1.0
Sub-contractors, professional advisers and consultants
25. There can be a tendency for the ‘main’ data controller organisation to deem its sub-contractor, professional adviser or consultant to be its data processor. Sometimes this can be written into a contract. However, the fact that an organisation contracts or employs another organisation to provide a service to it does not mean that the other organisation becomes its data processor in every case. Whether an organisation is a data controller or data processor will depend on their role and responsibilities in relation to the processing.


‘Portal Juggling’

Through your Twitter Feed you have sought to imply that our client is practising ‘portal juggling’. By this, you are stating that our client is manipulating internet portals to give a false impression of the status of a listing and, as such, they are in breach of the Property Ombudsman: Code of Practice for Residential Letting Agents. Further you have accused our client of misleading investors by reporting a current listing as a new listing and therefore new income. This is wholly untrue and is a further example of a mis- informed defamatory allegation designed to tarnish our client’s reputation.

As part of the service provided by our client to their customers, a customer may choose at any time to have a marketing break. This may be for reasons such as holidays, home improvements or simply because they cannot accommodate viewings during a particular period. The process is designed to provide choice and convenience for the customer.

It is entirely a customer’s choice as to when they wish to take a marketing break. The power is in the hands of our client’s customers to press the button to commence the marketing break and it is their decision as to when to put the property back live. This is subject always to a maximum period of three months for a marketing break. The property will automatically go live on the date that the customer sets or three months later although in every instance the customer is notified 24 hours prior to the property going back live and also notified as soon as the property goes live. They can of course set a new marketing break or set an alternative date themselves as they so wish.

When the property goes live again, an automatic notification is sent by Purplebricks to the property portals and in every instance, Purplebricks uses the original unique identification number that is attributed to the property from day one. Our client has no influence over how the property is then labelled by the property portals.

Rightmove, Zoopla and The Property Ombudsman have looked at ‘portal juggling’ in respect of Purplebricks and in each and every case they have concluded that our client’s platform is clear and transparent, with no form of ‘portal juggling’ undertaken. Our client receives no benefit from a property being taken off the market. Our client does not record them as “new listings” in any of their records, accounts or announcements. As you know, Purplebricks is a PLC and is therefore subject to strict auditing procedures.

CW – See comments above about the vast amount of data gathered showing PB are REDACTED by listing and re-listing properties without ensuring (as is their statutory responsibility) that these adverts are not misleading.

It is no defence to blame Rightmove or Zoopla for misleading data being placed there by its customers. Both portals provide facilities for preventing overwriting of information. Furthermore, PB also has a statutory obligation to show professionalism and due-diligence to protect its customers and those of its LPEs from providing misleading information to prospective buyers in the form of the status of the property.

If properties are not advertised with the correct data, it is the agents responsibility in law. If that data is misleading due to constant “marketing breaks” or multiple changes of ‘available’ to ‘sold stc’ in the course of an hour or two as is evidenced by screenshot and Rummage4 data, that is REDACTED.

Criminal Investigation


Deferred Payment Option

Our client takes very seriously the suggestion you have made that they mislead people about the nature of their deferred payment option. This is an extremely serious allegation which you have sought to make through various tweets, such as the tweet quoted above on 20 January 2017, where you seek to depict the co-founders of Purplebricks, Michael and Kenny Bruce as criminals running from their customers.

The nature and extent of the deferred payment option is clear, transparent, understood and explained in detail to all customers. Our client has thousands of customers every month who freely choose the deferred payment option which makes very clear what they are entering into, the nature of the relationship, the nature of the agreement, with whom they are entering into the agreement and the terms upon which they are entering into the agreement. It is fully explained to them by the LPEs and everything is clearly set out when a customer is instructing Purplebricks and consenting to enter into the agreement and completing their direct debit details. Full details of the agreement are also immediately emailed to the customer.

CW – As detailed above. I have now been approached by a number of people who claim that they have been signed up to an agreement by an LPE without having this explained to them. Furthermore, these people also independently allege that when they ask to cancel the agreement within the statutory cooling off period, they are told that this is not possible.

As I write this, my partner has been contacted by a friend from out of the area who has had a similar experience and is deeply worried at the response she has received from PB.

These are clearly not isolated incidents. REDACTED

(24/08/2017 CW – read in conjunction with the BBC You and Yours and Watchdog programme on the 4th of August.)

Whatever the reason, I now have a number of independent people who have stated on the record that this is what PB has done.


We are also concerned with the libellous comments you make in respect of the content of a report (REDACTED – Published in error by the analyst concerned and since withdrawn, however, a copy is held on file for evidential purposes – CW 24.8.17). You use the content of the report to infer and declare that Purplebricks only sell 14% of the properties that they take to the market. This is untrue and highly defamatory. You should note that Purplebricks have provided REDACTED with evidence that, rather than the 14% referred to in the report, the actual number based on his sample analysis should have been 91.6%.”

CW – I am not sure how a making a statement based in good faith, relying on data published by an independent respected analyst can be regarded as libellous.

‘Sell’, as opposed to ‘agree sales subject to contract on’ (or similar wording), is a very clear statement that a company has introduced a buyer to a property who has successfully completed contracts on that transaction.

Mr Bruce and PB as a whole seem rather uncertain on these figures. Mr Bruce explicitly claimed that PB SOLD 88% of all property it listed (the word “sold” and its meaning when used by Mr Bruce was repeated after further clarification was requested by Paul Lewis on MoneyBox). Yet now you claim 91.6% sell.

This is patently false. Data clearly shows that PB are not completing on anything like that number of transactions and to suggest otherwise is grossly misleading to the public and investors.

I will happily make a full retraction and apology if PB will produce evidence that for every 100 properties they list, they introduce a buyer to 91.6% of those same properties which go through to successful completion at a fair market price.

The data I have and am happy to make available to you or your client, is that PB complete on a significantly less than that and that amount is before being able to verify whether PB were the effective introducers to that property.

Trustpilot Reviews

You have today posted a libellous and damaging tweet requesting the address to send details about the hundreds of “anomalies” you infer you have found about what we can only assume is our client’s Trustpilot reviews, you having posted one of their reviews below the tweet. You are openly suggesting irregularity regarding the posting of reviews which we do not accept in any way. Please now provide the evidence to which you refer to this firm which can then be examined in its entirety before acting further on this issue.

CW – As already detailed above. PB regularly removes TP reviews that are less than glowing.*

PB do not make it clear to consumers that these reviews are taken at the time of instruction and not post completion which, it has been argued by a trading standards officer I work with, is misleading in itself.

I will happily exchange evidence with PB in exchange for the evidence I have requested above.

*24/08/2017 – CW Clarification – PB remove unverified negative reviews within a matter of minutes or hours however, unverified positive reviews are permitted to remain published indefinitely in the majority of cases.

Property Expert Tweet

You have today also posted a libellous and damaging tweet which is misleading and inaccurate about the CEO of Purplebricks, Michael Bruce. You used the headline “Property Expert” and then post a response that Michael Bruce sent to a customer in respect of an issue they were having. Michael stated “I am new to this so bear with me and I will do what I can”. You are inferring that because he said he was ‘new to this’ that he was referring to being new to the property industry. This is entirely misleading. Michael was referring to being new to the issue and to infer otherwise is libellous.

CW – It was clearly tongue in cheek, however, in the interim, Mr Bruce may find these useful 

Answer previously detailed above


You have over 7,400 followers on Twitter and defamatory tweets by you have been retweeted on many occasions. As such, dissemination and re-publication of the defamatory material is foreseeable and inevitable. This is aggravated by the fact that many of your followers are members of the property industry who have an implicit interest in the material you are tweeting about our client. You are further liable for the republication of the Comments on Twitter by other users, which is clearly foreseeable as they were posted on an industry website.

Our client’s business is built on the highest level of customer care and satisfaction while adhering to all compliance and regulatory requirements. As such, it considers the Allegations made by you to be of the utmost seriousness and will take all steps necessary to vindicate its reputation.

We trust that now you are on notice of the falsity of the Allegations made on your Twitter Feed and in the Comments, you will take appropriate steps to remedy the situation. Your continued publication of the Allegations is entirely indefensible and aggravate any damages awarded in future legal proceedings.

You should also be aware that the continued publication of the Tweets and Comments, now you are on clear notice the allegations therein are untrue, would give rise to a claim by our client against you in malicious falsehood as well as libel.

In the circumstances, we require that you:

(1) Immediately remove the defamatory Tweets;
(2) Confirm that you will not repeat the Allegations in any future tweet, comment or other publication; and
(3) Agree to publish an apology and correction on your Twitter Feed, the contents of which are to be agreed with us in advance, making clear that the Allegations are categorically untrue.

CW – Notwithstanding the various issues raised about PBs alleged legal status and professional standing, your clients have made many baseless and misleading comments about the business model I employ which affects my business and standing as a professional and, of thousands of other agents in the UK.

It relies on data and makes claims that are knowingly false:

*Comparing savings on an average fee which is significantly higher than the published average UK agents fee by its own conveyancing partner

*Comparing savings per sold customer without when in fact, this is a misleading comparison as it does not factor in those customers who do not sell and are not charged in my business model. On a like for like (average cost per listing) basis, PB are significantly more expemnsive than my business model (using REDACTED original data) and almost identical cost per customer listing when using data from Rummage4.

Your clients business has not, with respect been built on the highest levels of customer care and satisfaction (as the many Facebook reviews (removed) and unflattering TP reviews (removed) show. No, as the public accounts show, PB has built its market share using huge investments of cash subsidising each listing using claims that are, at best, dubious* and, as has been indicated above, at odds with itself.

As I have said separately, I have yet to consider whether to take legal advice however, my very limited understanding of this area of the law is that for damages to be made for defamation or libel, the claimant must prove I have been malicious and made knowingly false statements. Neither of which is true.

*24/08/2017 CW An opinion since vindicated by the ASA

We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency and, in any event, by no later than 12pm (GMT) on 24 January 2017 to REDACTED of this firm ( and

In the meantime, all our client’s rights are reserved. Yours faithfully




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s