Jared and Rosie Ogilvy bought a house with a great view, or so they thought. The Real Estate agent who failed to disclose that a new build would block this view has been fined by a disciplinary tribunal but they now plan to appeal for compensation.
A Tauranga couple who lost their "stunning" sea view after a real estate agent failed to tell them about a neighbour's plans will appeal.
Jared and Rosie Ogilvy are unhappy about a Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal ruling released on Friday.
The $8000 fine against Tanya Dunham of LJ HookerTauranga was too low, Jared Ogilvy said, and they wanted compensation. He estimated a $60,000 loss in the value of the Forrester Drive house, which now has only glimpses of the sea.
"We'll be appealing this, absolutely. Eight grand! What's that?" he said. "The Real Estate Agents Authority and the tribunal left us out of the whole process. They interviewed us and then they take over - you're just a witness. We never sought compensation because we were told we wouldn't get it. But we do want compensation."
Jared Ogilvy is unhappy after a real estate agent failed to tell them about neighbouring plans. Photo / George Novak
He said they were not told about the penalty hearing and had no chance to appear.
Dunham was found guilty of disgraceful conduct when it emerged she knew about a neighbour's building plans before she sold her parents' home in Forrester Drive. She also failed to make clear she was the vendor's daughter.
The principal and director of LJ Hooker Tauranga could not be reached for comment last night and Dunham's voicemail said she was on holiday.
Kevin Lampen-Smith, the Real Estate Agents Authority chief executive, said it was the tribunal - not the authority - which heard the case and made the penalty ruling.
"The [tribunal] is run by the Ministry of Justice. This was a disciplinary proceeding against the agent and not a civil case on behalf of the Ogilvys to recover/redress any claimed loss. The tribunal's role is to hold the agent to account and decide the appropriate penalty, their decision outlines their reasons for the penalty.
"We apologise that the Ogilvys were not made aware of the penalty hearing date ... as witnesses they did have the opportunity to tell their story at the hearing - which they did."
A spokesman for the ministry said the tribunal was a judicial body that made its decisions based on the law and the circumstances of the cases before it.
"Any party that disagrees with tribunal's decisions can appeal to the High Court."
