John Waymouth: Loosening institute's stranglehold

COMMENT

Centralising all the power in residential real estate with one body has created a deeply flawed system.

In its response to renovating the Real Estate Agents Act, the Real Estate Institute is trying to keep all the centralised head-office power it already has, which is far too much already.

It is trying to keep its stranglehold on the industry but the public are not well-served by this approach.

Nor are the institute's members who are licensees.

Many want to have membership of the institute made voluntary.

At the moment it is compulsory under the act to join the institute, but many licensees are questioning what value they get from their memberships and what many perceive as a lack of assistance and service from the head office of the national body.

Many licensees are looking forward to the day when - like lawyers who will soon have voluntary membership of the Law Society - real estate agents will also be able to choose whether they should be governed by the institute.

In particular, they are aggrieved at what they see as paying for a bureaucracy based in Parnell that does not provide any real service or benefit for their needs.

Take the disciplinary process for real estate agents, which has caused much grievance among members who feel the current closed-shop, old-boy approach unfairly prejudices them, and that an institute which is meant to be helping its members in reality does nothing more than whip them.

One of the institute's strangleholds is in leasing, managing and letting residential properties.

The act says that any person who leases or lets a property must be a real estate agent, but is silent when it discusses managing a property that has been let.

Many companies that are not members of the institute do not engage in letting, but manage properties.

They have been threatened with legal proceedings by the Real Estate Institute, which wants to keep a closed shop.

Although a few people involved in this area are not licensed, the institute has made threatening noises about their continuing and would like to see a tightening of the system so this part of the industry is kept under its firm control, which may not be in the public interest.

The institute has failed to deliver good education to its members. It used to.

Many members are also concerned that some of the office-holders in the institute are unfamiliar with the realities of running a real estate office and are out of touch with the needs of their members.

The Parnell head office sports not one single person who has been a successful real estate agent with his or her own business.

How would these people know what is really involved in running a business - the pressures and financial difficulties faced by agents daily?

In contrast with what happens at the national office, the regional managers of the institute are the complete opposite. Without exception, they are aware of the needs of their members and try to help them, but often encounter a brick wall at head office.

I want to see a balance between the Parnell bureaucracy retaining their self-interest and the needs of the members.

The members should be more fully protected and assisted by a national body that has these members as its main focus.

From the overhaul of the Real Estate Agents Act, I would like to see a more rigorous spotlight put on the unethical salesperson and less blame put on his or her bosses, who are the licensees and who are disciplined for the sins of the salesperson, often needlessly.

* John Waymouth is an Auckland real estate and property law barrister.