Three land buyers were misinformed about the size of the plots they were going to purchase. Photo / 123rf
Three land buyers were misinformed about the size of the plots they were going to purchase. Photo / 123rf
Three buyers of three pieces of land got less than they bargained for after finding the lots they were lined up to purchase were only a fraction of the size the real estate agent had advertised them to be.
Yaming Sun, or Jessica Sun, also disclosed information about the landowner’s financial situation to a prospective buyer in what the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal said was “particularly inappropriate”.
In the tribunal’s recent decision on the realtor’s conduct, it said Sun was engaged by a landowner to sell lots of a large subdivision in Auckland in 2016.
That year she met with prospective buyers at the site on several occasions.
She told three buyers that each respective lot they were interested in was just over 600sq m and there would be plenty of space to build a 400sq m house and a swimming pool.
Sale and purchase agreements were entered into by the three buyers in June of the same year and deposits were paid to Barfoot and Thompson.
However, when the titles were issued in November of the following year the buyers pointed out that the size of the plots were smaller than they had been told they would be.
Lot one was 374sq m, or 61 per cent of the promised 603sq m. Lot two was 389sq m and Lot three was 455sq m, each instead of 601sq m.
None of the plots of land ended up reaching a final settlement.
The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal held a week-long hearing in February this year after the land owner made a complaint about Sun’s conduct and last week it issued a finding of misconduct.
The tribunal said a realtor must make every effort to know the product they are selling and that Sun had clearly been out of her depth.
The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal heard the case against the realtor who gave the misinformation to the buyers. Photo / File
In her statement of defence, Sun did not deny that misrepresentations were made to the purchasers of Lots 1, 2 and 3 regarding their sizes, but claimed it was the landowner who made these misrepresentations and she was only passing on the information.
But in his evidence, the landowner, whose name was redacted from the decision, said he had provided Sun a copy of the council-approved subdivision plans which included details of the various easements that applied to each of the lots.
Counsel for the committee prosecuting Sun said it was clear she didn’t understand what the plans showed, nor what an easement actually was.
As part of her evidence, Sun called her mother, husband and neighbour as witnesses who all said they had been to the site and the landowner had told them the various lot sizes were just over 600sq m.
However, the committee said that all of Sun’s witnesses had a personal connection with her, their statements contained near-identical wording and alleged they had conferred with Sun in making them.
The tribunal said Sun lacked an understanding of the subdivision and the easements as they were outlined in the plans and should have made inquiries about where the boundaries were.
“Ms Sun was out of her depth and should have sought clarification from her supervisor, or recommended that the purchasers obtain professional advice,” the tribunal said.
“As a result of this, the purchasers of Lots 1, 2 and 3 agreed to purchase the lots in reliance on incorrect information.”
Sun also faced charges of disclosing confidential information to one of the buyers via the messaging app WeChat regarding the net size of one of the lots.
“I will go and talk with [the landowner]. He is very frustrated now. He is very anxious because there has been no update from this side. The bank loan is nearly due. I hope you can have a proper discussion,” the message in question reads.
Sun then sent a screenshot of this message to the landowner in an attempt to convince him to resolve the dispute about driveway easements with the prospective purchaser.
However, during her evidence at the hearing, Sun raised concerns as to the legitimacy of the WeChat messages, suggesting they had been altered or photoshopped.
The committee prosecuting Sun said she was still acting for the landowner at the time and that information about a vendor’s financial circumstances would typically be confidential.
They said disclosing information a vendor was under financial pressure could have given the purchaser an advantage in negotiations about the disputed size of the lots.
The tribunal said Sun did not have permission to pass on the information and that the “disclosure was particularly inappropriate given the issues arising around settlement of the transactions and knowledge of this information was a factor that could have affected settlement for the particular lot”.
It also dismissed Sun’s evidence that the screenshot of the WeChat conversation the landowner provided was altered in any way.
Sun was also found guilty of charges of marketing the various plots of land without an agency agreement and discrepancies in the GST schedules continued in each of the sales and purchase agreements of the lots.
The tribunal will issue its penalty decision in due course.
