Just two months later in November, he agreed to sell it to the couple for $1.125m, making a $225,000 profit.
That deal went ahead but the couple were so upset about it, that they complained to the authority.
The decision against the agent gave a timeline of events on the property, valued at $1m at the time of sale:
- March, 2019: Harcourts agent Tromp de Haas lists the unidentified North Shore property for sale;
- August, 2019: Couple offers $900,000 via another agent to buy it, ups that to $925,000 but with conditions;
- September, 2019: Tromp de Haas buys the property via another agency for $900,000;
- November 2019: He accepts the offer to sell it to the couple for $1,125,000;
- February 2020: Sale to couple settles, five months after the Harcourts agent has bought it.
So the couple then went to the authority and complained the agent “manipulated the position and abused his position as a licensee to make a large short-term profit”, the committee decision said.
The agent denied he had done that. He said he was unaware that the buyers were the couple because he had never had any dealings with them.
Tromp de Haas said he did not place himself in a conflict of interest position because he was informed that the previous offers had been rejected by the vendor, including the complainants who were not his clients.
He acted in the best interest of the vendor regarding the complainants’ offer as it was their conditions the vendor did not like and rejected. Subsequently, the vendor was happy to consider his offer.
The couple sought the $225,000 back.
Tromp de Hass “says he acted honestly and has a respected reputation in the industry”, the penalty decision said.
“Unsatisfactory conduct findings were made against Mr Tromp de Haas in respect of his obligation owed to the vendor, specifically with regards to management of conflict of interest. The committee found that Mr Tromp de Haas did not fail to act in the best interests of the vendor when complainant one and complainant two made a conditional offer for the property and nor did he fail to act in good faith and deal fairly with complainant one and complainant two,” the decision said.
It ordered the publication of his name and the agency but said the couple couldn’t be identified, nor could the property at the centre of the dispute.
“Tromp de Haas did not take appropriate steps to properly manage conflict of interest concerns when he purchased the property from the vendor,” the penalty decision said.
He did not advise the vendor of his obligations under the law and did not explain the conflict of interest before the vendor entered into the agreement with him, the decision said, although it also noted the vendor of the property had not complained.
What he did fell “within the mid-range” of unsatisfactory conduct, the decision said.
Asked last week by the Herald about the case, Tromp de Haas said he no longer worked in real estate and had not for some years.
He was not “interested in rekindling the whole episode. They dealt with me harshly,” he said of the committee. ”They wanted a fall guy to make it look like they were doing their job. It’s all over and done with.”
Told matters were unfinished because Cooper and the agency were now before the tribunal he said: “It’s nothing to do with me. I’ve had enough.”
The tribunal has reserved its decision after Tuesday’s hearing against Cooper and the agency.
A spokesman for the authority confirmed the charge against Cooper and the agency followed the Tromp de Haas case.
One of the two complainants against Tromp de Hass this week told the Herald he remained annoyed and angry about the outcome of matters.
He said he had sought a refund of the $225,000 but it had not been paid so he made the complaint.
But he said that did not result in him receiving the $225,000 back and he is not hopeful he will recover the money.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 24 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
