Nelson real estate agent fined $2500 for revealing sale price range

The Nelson agent revealed a price range. Photo / Nelson City Council

A Nelson real estate agent who disclosed a price expectation on a property for sale has been found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct and fined $2500.

The case against Paul Neilan of Vining Realty Group, trading as Bayleys Nelson, was heard by a Real Estate Authority complaints assessment committee.

A property vendor expected $1.2m for a place, the committee said but no one was meant to know about that price.

But just four days before the deadline sale closing date, Neilan told a buyer's representative that the property would be sold for between $1.1m and $1.2m, the committee decision said.

That upset the vendors who then had to change their plans.

"Due to the licensees' conduct, they were forced to change agency, pay another agency marketing fee and also carry the costs of maintaining the property over winter as the licensee caused them to miss a sales opportunity," the committee said of submissions for the complainant whose name was not disclosed.

"Licensee Neilan failed to act in the client's best interest, did not act in good faith and breached his fiduciary duty to his client when he disclosed a price range to a buyer's agent during a deadline sale process," the committee ruled.

The complainants said they set their expectations for the property at $1.2m and above and "were very clear about not accepting anywhere near $1.1m", the ruling noted.

But Neilan had given a sale range of $1.1m to $1.2m and that implied the vendors would accept a sale of $1.1m when that was clearly not the case.

His range effectively capped the sale price. Neilan did not have the vendor's permission to disclose a price or any range to any buyer before the deadline sale.

He defended himself by saying that disclosure of a price was "a promotional opportunity, not a representation to a purchaser."

The vendors had subsequently re-listed the property with two other agencies and eight months later, had sold it, he said. Yet they got the same price as an offer he had presented "so no loss was suffered by the complainants", he told the committee.

But his actions were ruled to be unsatisfactory.

He must pay the authority $2500 but was not ordered to apologise for what he did. Making an order for that would have no merit, the committee decided.

Nor was he ordered to undergo any further training, despite the complainants asking for that. The committee said it was not a lack of training which caused the breach, "rather a lack of judgment".

A complaint was heard against a second licensee in the same matter but that person's name was not disclosed in the ruling.

A spokesman for Bayleys Nelson said the agency accepted the authority's decision.