He should also have explained whether a revision of price expectations was warranted.
Wall’s conduct was found to be unsatisfactory when he told the complainants of a part payment of the deposit but made no mention of the terms of the agreement for sale and purchase.
By failing to advise the complainants that they should get legal advice before signing the agency agreement and the sale and purchase agreement, he was in breach of the rules, the decision said.
The complaints assessment committee decision said no further action would be taken on seven of 12 complaints, including an allegation that Wall drafted a poor description of their property for marketing purposes, left windows and doors unlocked when visiting and did not present an offer he received right away.
Wall told the committee he had provided a list of sold comparable properties at the time of initially listing their place.
He did not recall leaving anything unlocked, but did not dispute the complainants’ point and apologised.
He accepted that an offer he got from a buyer was submitted two days after it was received, but the decision also noted the complainants were travelling.
“The complainants say that they are very disappointed by the lack of professionalism from Mr Wall and the agency and the substandard level of competence, diligence and care that they received during the sale process.
“They say this has caused them and their family significant emotional stress and hurt. Further to that, the complaints process has been time-consuming and stressful,” the penalty decision said.
The agency and Wall responded to that.
“As a small family business, the agency strives for the highest standard of care and overall satisfaction for their clients and members of the public that they deal with. The complaints process has been stressful, but also a time of learning. As a result of this complaint, the agency has made changes to ensure a higher level of care and diligence in their dealings,” they said.
The committee recorded a number of minor breaches of the rules by Wall.
“In isolation, each breach was seen by the committee as minor, or technical, and having little impact on the outcome for the complainants.
“Taken together, however, Mr Wall’s conduct painted a picture of an overall level of diligence and care that fell short of the standard that a reasonable member of the public is entitled to expect from a reasonably competent licensee,” it said.
The agency’s conduct was also unsatisfactory.
An order was made that Wall and the agency be censured.
The two must also apologise to the complainants in writing within two weeks of the date of the decision.
They must undergo training within three months of the decision.
The agency must engage an authority-approved service or training provider to give a one-hour in-person training session for Wall covering best practice in the preparation and use of comparative market analysis or appraisals, the decision said.
Asked for his opinion about the decision, Wall said: “This was a stressful experience, particularly given it followed what had been a successful sale. We’ve always worked hard to act with integrity and professionalism, so receiving a complaint was unexpected.
“We respect the REA’s process and are pleased the decision confirmed the matter was considered “minor and/or technical with little impact on the complainant”.
This story has been amended to clarify which issues action was taken on and which no further action was warranted.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald‘s property editor for 25 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
