A more reliable housing market – Central government supervision of estate agents

The FMI strives, in its supervision, to prioritise the most serious violations and has been working for several years to introduce a risk-based approach in its selection of supervisory actions. Since 2024, the FMI has had a supervisory strategy with priority criteria that is mainly applied systematically in its thematic supervision but is also relevant in screening reports. However, the Swedish National Audit Office assesses that this supervisory strategy is more of a description of factors that can be considered rather than a systematic selection tool, especially regarding supervision on the basis of reports. It is not clear how the FMI evaluates what the outcome will be at an overall level and how it guides the direction. The most common areas for reports are also largely common in supervision. However, the Swedish National Audit Office considers that there is a risk of too little scope for supervision of violations that are more difficult to investigate.

This audit shows that the FMI has increased the proportion of its supervision of estate agents and estate agencies that are not based on reports. This is in line with the Government’s calls for more proactive and risk-based supervision. However, supervision that is not based on reports seldom addresses violations that estate agents commit when acting as an intermediary. It is the assessment of the Swedish National Audit Office that the FMI does not sufficiently use that type of supervision as a complement to supervision based on reports to capture risks of serious violations.

The audit shows that the FMI is performing effective supervision. The FMI uses its various types of penalties and writes off fewer cases than before. The Swedish National Audit Office assesses that the FMI mainly has appropriate methods for collecting information from estate agents, and systems and procedures that facilitate information collection. However, it is more difficult for the FMI to collect information or documentation from actors other than estate agents, estate agencies or government agencies. It is less common for a supervisory matter to result in the FMI being unable to determine whether there has been a violation.

This audit shows that it is relatively easy for consumers to report estate agents and estate agencies to the FMI and the FRN. Clear and relevant information is available. However, several studies show that many consumers who are dissatisfied with estate agents do not report the matter to the FMI. According to the Swedish National Audit Office, this may be due to a lack of knowledge about the possibility for reporting, but also a lack of knowledge about estate agents’ obligations.

This audit has not revealed any indications of problems related to alternative dispute resolution in the estate agent field. However, the Swedish National Audit Office notes that the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency’s supervision of the FRN has so far been limited, while it is important because there are no other possibilities for transparency.