Ten decisions were released in February, requiring no further action, and another is under appeal.
Several others, including the cases detailed below, were found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct.
Complaints assessment committees were formed to deal with these cases.
Decisions often result in only the agents’ names being published, not those of the complainants, nor the addresses or areas of the properties involved.
The authority is the state entity that decides on cases against agents, often also referring matters to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal.
Decisions from February are now available on the authority’s site. Photo / Real Estate Authority
Agent gave keys to a friend
The case against Li (Leo) Liu was over his giving keys to a house he was selling to a friend, so buyers got early access.
A complainant whose name was suppressed said the buyer had got into the unidentified property before settlement.
That was found to be due to Liu’s actions.
He gave the keys to a friend who was not a licensee, and that person let the buyers in.
“The complainant alleges that the purchasers had free rein of the property before they owned it, and they should not have been there before settlement,” the decision of the Real Estate Authority said.
Liu was overseas at the time of the sale.
He apologised and said he could assure everyone involved that he would not repeat that.
In the future, he will leave the release of keys to his office administrator in his absence.
The authority lists Liu as being an agent at Barfoot & Thompson’s Mt Albert office.
He was fined $500, partly due to his lack of prior disciplinary history.
Agent was the vendor’s mum
Brenda Davey failed to disclose that she – or a person she was related to – stood to benefit financially from the sale of a property.
The complainants say they were interested in buying a property, but noticed that the vendor had the same last name and address as the agent.
Davey, the agent, was the vendor’s mother. Davey did not disclose this to the complainants, they said.
A committee found she did not comply with her professional obligations because she did not exercise the required skill, care, competence, and diligence at all times when carrying out real estate agency.
But her failure to declare a related person was not a deliberate or reckless concealment.
Davey remembered “having a discussion about [her daughter’s] horse that was grazing at the property at the time”.
But the committee said that was insufficient to discharge her obligation to disclose a related person in writing.
She admitted her error and had taken steps to ensure this situation did not recur.
The authority lists Davey as being an agent at Picton Property Centre.
She was fined $1500.
Deposit released early
Commercial North Shore, trading as Bayleys North Shore Commercial, failed to get a vendor’s written authority to release a deposit early.
It did not enter property deposits into the trust account system in a timely manner and a deposit went out before 10 working days.
This was uncovered in an audit report.
The agency acknowledged that these deposits were not received into the trust account in a timely manner.
Its administration offices had shut from December 18, 2023, till mid-January 2024.
The normal procedure was that a small group of administrators worked then, but, due to leave and sickness, these deals were not received in the agency’s system, despite being received.
The agency was fined $1000.
Leaky-home case
Mark Rumsey engaged in unsatisfactory conduct when he sold a house, which the buyers later complained about, the decision on the authority’s website said.
“Given the nature of the cladding, the internal guttering system and the house being built in the [leaky-home syndrome] era, he should have ensured that this information was brought to the attention of all potential purchasers,” the ruling said.
Rumsey failed to do so.
He did not make appropriate inquiries regarding the weathertightness of the property, and also did not make the relevant information available to the buyers.
Nor did Rumsey disclose the guttering system of the property, even though he was aware of this aspect.
The committee found that it was for him to disclose this to all potential buyers, given the cladding of the house, and he failed to explicitly do so.
Because Rusmey was aware of the cladding, he should have raised that explicitly with the complainants, so that they were put on notice that this was an aspect that should be investigated further.
Rumsey said he had built many homes during the leaky-home period through his construction company, Heritage Homes.
He was very aware of the issues related to weathertightness and selling properties afflicted with it.
Rumsey said all properties built in the leaky home era were flagged.
During all viewings, prospective buyers were told to seek professional advice and get a builder’s report.
The authority lists Rumsey as working at Ray White Westport.
He was fined $2000.
How new was the roof?
A case against agent Ruwade Bryant concerned an allegation of misleading information about the roof and whether he failed to say the title was defective.
The committee found that the roof at the property was not “newer”, as was represented.
It accepted that Bryant did not intend to deceive the complainant by making that representation.
But it also considered that he did not take sufficient care to ensure the information he was passing on was accurate and gave misleading information about the roof.
The complainant said Bryant told her daughter that the roof was new within the last five years.
Bryant acknowledged that he described the property to the complainant’s daughter as having a “newer roof on it”.
The authority lists Bryant as being an agent with Lugton’s in Hamilton.
He was fined $1000.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 26 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
Stay ahead with the latest market moves, corporate updates, and economic insights by subscribing to our Business newsletter – your essential weekly round-up of all the business news you need.