Auckland apartment advert 'completely misleading'

Photo / Thinkstock

An advert for an Auckland apartment that failed to disclose a 90-day maximum occupation clause was "completely misleading'', the real estate agents' disciplinary tribunal says.

The comment came in a finding into the conduct of two Barfoot & Thompson agents who listed a Wakefield St property bought by Sunny Liu at a mortgagee sale in 2011.

As well as failing to mention the owner could live in the apartment for only three months, the agents also did not mention that more than $15,000 in body corporate fees were outstanding.

Those fees became Ms Liu's responsbility as the successful buyer.

The tribunal said the property was advertised as being ``suitable for students and other inner city dwellers'' without mention of the occupation clause.

Ms Liu made a complaint to the Real Estate Agents Authority and their complaints committee found agents Hanok Shin and Philip Davis were guilty of unsatisfactory conduct.

The committee found the advertisement was ``completely misleading'' because it was hard to believe anyone would find an apartment with limited occupation ``satisfactory, let alone great''.

It decided each agent should pay a fine of $6000 and their agency $5000 however, all three parties appealed against the size of the penalty.

Auckland property lawyer David Kirkpatrick was called as an expert witness and said he could find no evidence on the Auckland Council file that the limited occupation right had been imposed as part of the resource consent.

He concluded there was no lawful restriction which could impose a limitation on Ms Liu's right to occupy the apartment fulltime.

The tribunal also heard Barfoot & Thompson's intranet system was not particularly reliable at the time of the sale.

The tribunal said it was not certain about the legal status of the accommodation restriction and in the circumstances the fines were too big.

It ordered revised fines of $1000 for each agent and $3500 for Barfoot & Thompson.