KEY POINTS:
The real estate sector has been taking a hammering lately, thanks to the actions of a few rogue agents and a slow-to-reform governing body, the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand. Changes are on their way, however, with a proposal for an independent body with investigative powers to
better protect consumers and give aggrieved buyers redress. What prompted public concerns? Here's a few of the public's complaints:
* Accentuating the positive, not talking about the negative - one high-profile case involved a Hamilton couple who weren't told that an apartment complex was going up next door. A valuer estimated the couple lost out on an extra $30,000 in value when they sold the property 18 months later.
* Over-generous descriptions - "15 minutes drive from the city" might be accurate when measured at 2pm on a Sunday, but quite another matter when you have to go to work at 8am on weekdays. And those desirable "sea views" that have drawn you to an open home might have been achieved by the agent scrambling to the top of the roof to take the photo.
* Dodgy advertising - manipulating sales statistics to attract customers. Recently L J Hooker's Timaru office was found guilty by the Advertising Standards Authority of misleading the public by advertising that it could achieve a premium house price of 10 per cent over its competitors. Trouble was the company's small sample size for the survey had a distorting effect on the final calculation.
* False information - An agent knowingly giving false information about a property, eg, advising that a property is not subject to a body corporate when it is.
* Conflict of interest - not disclosing an agent's relationship with a buyer landed Takapuna agency Premium Real Estate with a $900,000 fine after a High Court settlement.
* Vendor-paid advertising - sometimes it seems to raise the profile of the agent, more than the property.
* Delays in dealing with official complaints: A North Shore woman died after waiting almost three years for REINZ to deal with her complaint about allegedly being pressured into accepting a low offer for her house after an unsuccessful auction.
* Paltry fines: In another high-profile scandal a Napier agent was found to have acted unethically over the sale of a client's two townhouses after he reduced the price of two units to almost half their asking price, but never disclosed he was trying to buy the properties himself. (The properties later sold with another agency for close to the asking price.) For this, his firm was fined the maximum by the industry - $750 on each of three charges.
