Birdling - Complaint No C00127 [2013] NZREAA 255 (29 November 2013)

Last Updated: 3 August 2014

In the Matter of Part 4 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

And

In the Matter of Complaint No: C00127 and CB6900275

In the Matter of Mark Birdling

Licence Number: 10007000

And

Bayleys Real Este Limited

Licence Number: 10017764

And

The Auctioneer

Licence Number: XXXXXXXX

Decision of Complaints Assessment Committee

Dated this 29th day of November 2013

Complaints Assessment Committee: CAC20004

Chairperson: Michael Vallant

Panel Member: David Russell

Complaints Assessment Committee

Decision finding unsatisfactory conduct

1. The Complaint

1.1 The Complainant has complained to the Real Estate Agents Authority (the Authority) about the conduct of Mr Mark Birdling (the Licensee) and Bayleys Real Estate Ltd (the Agency). The Licensee is licensed under the Real Estate Agents Act 2009 (the Act) and holds a salesperson license and works for the Agency.

1.2 The Complainant also complained about the conduct of the Auctioneer. The Auctioneer is licensed under the Act.

1.3 The Complainant’s complaint against the Agency can be summarised as follows: The Agency:

(a) had a conflict of interest in assisting the Complainant to obtain finance in September 2011 to carry out renovations on the Complainant’s property (the Property);

(b) did not allow the Complainant to run an onsite auction with her preferred auctioneer Mr. S; (c) did not provide the Complainant with adequate time to sell her property;

(d) the Agency’s auctioneer failed, prior to the auction, to read a statement prepared by the

Complainant pointing out the Property’s selling points; (e) charged the Complainant an excessive commission;

(f) sold the Property for $451,000.00 when it had a true value between $480,000.00-

$520,000.00, thereby causing the Complainant substantial financial loss.

1.4 The Complainant’s complaint against the Licensee can be summarised as follows: The Licensee:

(a) had a conflict of interest when assisting the Complainant to obtain finance in September

2011;

(b) failed to allow the Complainant to run an onsite auction with her preferred auctioneer Mr. S; (c) applied pressure to the Complainant to list the Property for sale with the Agency;

(d) presented offers to the Complainant from potential purchasers which were in the region of

$370,000.00 (being the Government Valuation) when instructed by the Complainant not to do so;

(e) arranged to sell the Property to a personal acquaintance;

(f) applied undue pressure on the Complainant to sale the Property to the purchaser following the auction;

(g) the Licensee’s conduct, during the course of selling the Complainant’s Property and as a result of the outcome, caused the Complainant pain and stress and reduced her financial security for her retirement years;

1.5 The complaint against the Auctioneer is that she failed to read out a letter prepared by the

Complainant and provided by her to the Licensee.

2. Material Facts

2.1 In early September 2011 the Complainant approached the Licensee and asked if the Licensee or his Agency could lend her money to renovate her house in preparation for sale. The Licensee advised the Complainant that this was not possible, but provided the Complainant with contact details of a mortgage broker who could possibly assist her in obtaining finance. The Complainant contacted the mortgage broker who arranged short-term finance for her through a finance company.

2.2 In mid-November 2011 the Complainant contacted the Licensee to inspect the Property, advising him that she was ready to sell and that she wished to discuss the process with him. At the meeting between the Licensee and the Complainant the Licensee said that he estimated the Property would sell for between $440,000.00 and $470,000.00.

2.3 The Complainant indicated that she had received advice from another real estate agency that the Property had a value of approximately $550,000.00. It was agreed that the Property would be auctioned on site on 17 December 2011. The Complainant said she would like to use the auctioneering services of Mr. S who had sold a number of neighboring properties and had impressed her. The Licensee indicated that the Agency had its own panel of auctioneers.

2.4 On the afternoon of 28 November 2011 the Complainant signed a listing authority with the Licensee, provided the Licensee with her credit card details and agreed to a marketing budget of

$1,782.50. At that time the Licensee explained to her the steps in the auction process.

2.5 At approximately 5pm on the same day, the Complainant phoned the Licensee and advised that she could not afford the advertising costs and wished to cancel the auction.

2.6 On 30 November 2011 a cancellation notice was received from the Complainant's son’s e-mail address confirming the cancellation of the auction.

2.7 In January 2012 the Licensee noticed a private for sale sign on the Complainant’s Property and approached her to ask her what was going on. The Complainant advised the Licensee that she needed to sell the Property because bills were mounting and the loan from the finance company had almost gone.

2.8 The Licensee advised the Complainant of the Agency's 'Big Call' auction campaign which included free marketing to the value of $3,000.

2.9 A few days later the Complainant met with the Licensee at the Agency's office and agreed to auction her Property as part of the 'Big Call' auction campaign.

2.10 At that meeting the Complainant asked for an onsite auction. The Licensee maintains that, after consultation with his manager, he made it clear to the Complainant that onsite auctions were not possible under the ‘Big Call’ campaign.

2.11 The Complainant considered the matter for a day or two and on 21 January 2012 signed a listing authority for an auction. The auction was to be held at the Agency’s auction rooms on 1 March

2012 with a proposed settlement date of 16 March 2012. The short settlement date was due to the financial pressure the Complainant was under.

2.12 During the marketing period the Licensee presented the Complainant with 5 pre-auction offers for

$390,000.00, $390,000.00, $375,000.00, $367,000.00, and $405,000.00. The last offer was verbally increased to $407,000.00.

2.13 All of these offers were rejected by the Complainant. The Complainant indicated to the Licensee that she was expecting offers in the region of $550,000.00. The ultimate purchaser of the Property, who owned the adjoining unit, made a pre-auction inspection of the Property.

2.14 The Complainant, the Licensee, the Auctioneer and the Licensee’s manager met at the Agency’s auction rooms on 27 February 2012 to discuss the form the auction would follow and to set the reserve price.

2.15 On 1 March 2012, the day of the auction, the Complainant set the reserve price at $540,000.00. The Complainant, accompanied by her son and two cousins, came to the auction rooms at 11am. Shortly before the auction commenced the Complainant’s son left the auction rooms. This was made known to the Licensee.

2.16 The auction commenced at 3pm. The Auctioneer introduced the Property using some of the information the Complainant had provided in her letter, but did not read out her full text. The Licensee was in the auction room, but not with the Complainant as he was taking instructions from a phone bidder - the neighbour and ultimate purchaser, Mrs. V.

2.17 During the auction process the Chief Auctioneer noted that the Complainant was becoming very agitated, distressed and crying. Accordingly he called a halt to the auction and the Complainant and her two cousins were taken to a private room where they could continue to view the auction. After a short time the Complainant instructed the auctioneer to continue the auction. The bidding reached $435,000.00 (the bid made by the ultimate purchaser) before the Property was passed in.

2.18 The Licensee consulted with the various bidders in the room and then advised the Complainant that he was going to obtain a written offer from Mrs. V. The Complainant and her two cousins retired to a nearby café.

2.19 The Licensee, upon returning, presented Mrs. V’s offer which had been increased to $451,000.00.

The offer was presented in the offices of the Agency to the Complainant in the presence of her two cousins and the Licensee's manager. The Complainant, after considerable discussion with her two cousins, signed the offer. This took place approximately 2 hours after the completion of the auction.

3. Relevant Provisions

3.1 The Complaints Assessment Committee (“the Committee”) believes the relevant provisions to this complaint are as follows:

3.2 Pursuant to section 72 of The Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (“the Act”) unsatisfactory conduct is defined as:

For the purposes of this Act, a licensee is guilty of unsatisfactory conduct if the licensee carries out real estate agency work that—

(a) falls short of the standard that a reasonable member of the public is entitled to expect from a reasonably competent licensee; or

(b) contravenes a provision of this Act or of any regulations or rules made under this Act; or

(c) is incompetent or negligent; or

(d) would reasonably be regarded by agents of good standing as being unacceptable.

3.3 Pursuant to the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2009:

5.1 A licensee must exercise skill, care, competence, and diligence at all times when carrying out real estate agency work.

6.2 A licensee must act in good faith and deal fairly with all parties engaged in a transaction.

6.3 A licensee must not engage in any conduct likely to bring the industry into disrepute.

9.1 A licensee must act in the best interests of a client and act in accordance with the client’s instructions unless to do so would be contrary to law.

9.2 A licensee must not engage in any conduct that would put a client, prospective client or customer under undue or unfair pressure.

9.3 A licensee must not take advantage of a client’s, prospective client’s or customer ’s inability to understand relevant documents, where such inability is reasonably apparent.

9.9 When inviting signature of an agency agreement or a sale and purchase agreement, or other contractual document, a licensee must ensure that a prospective client, client, and/or customer is aware that he or she can, and may need to, seek legal, technical, or other advice and information, and allow the prospective client, client, and/or customer a reasonable opportunity to do so.

9.13 A licensee must submit to the client all offers concerning the sale, purchase, or other disposal of any land or business, provided that such offers are in writing.

3.4 Pursuant to section 50 of the Act: Salespersons must be supervised

(1) A salesperson must, in carrying out any agency work, be properly supervised and managed by an agent or a branch manager.

(2) In this section properly supervised and managed means that the agency work is carried out under such direction and control of either a branch manager or an agent as is sufficient to ensure—

(a) that the work is performed competently; and

(b) that the work complies with the requirements of this Act.

4. Discussion

4.1 The complaints against the Agency and the Licensee are of a very similar nature and in many cases identical. Accordingly, the Committee proposes to deal with them together as far as possible.

4.2 The Committee notes that the onus of establishing a complaint on the balance of probabilities is borne by the Complainant - Hodgson v CAC & Arnold [2011] NZREADT 03.

Conflict of Interest

4.3 In September 2011 the Complainant approached the Licensee to see if she could borrow $10,000.00 to enable her to finish renovations on her Property.

4.4 The Licensee indicated that was not possible and referred her to a mortgage broker. The mortgage broker has provided a written statement which confirms that, apart from a referral relationship with the Licensee, there was no other form of relationship or any financial incentive provided by the mortgage broker to the Licensee or the Agency for referrals.

4.5 The arrangement appears to be no different from numerous similar situations were Licensees are approached by both buyers and sellers to provide a recommendation of a professional who could be consulted in the buying or selling process. Licensees quite often have a list of professionals such as valuers, building inspectors, mortgage brokers and lawyers to whom they are happy to recommend clients. A referral in this circumstance is not a conflict of interest.

4.6 Accordingly this part of the complaint is dismissed.

Failure to Provide for an Onsite Auction

4.7 When the Complainant initially considered an auction in December 2011, the Complainant and the Licensee discussed the possibility of an onsite auction and the use of a certain auctioneer, Mr. S. This auction however did not eventuate, the Complainant cancelling the authority with the Agency some hours after signing it.

4.8 When the Property was re-listed by the Complainant in January 2012 the evidence of the Licensee is that the Agency was not offering onsite auctions as part of the 'Big Call’ promotion.

4.9 The Complainant was aware that an onsite auction was not available before she signed the auction listing. Further, she considered whether to proceed with the auction for 24-hours before signing the auction listing authority. The Complainant does not appear to dispute or challenge that the Licensee told her that an onsite auction was not available.

4.10 Given that the Complainant was told an onsite auction was not part of the package she agreed to accept and was allowed time to consider whether to proceed. The Committee finds that the Complainant was not pressured or prejudiced in anyway and accordingly this part the complaint must fail.

Presenting of Offers

4.11 The Complainant complains that the Licensee was in breach of her instructions in that he presented offers well below her expectations. It is the Complainant's belief that the Licensee was indicating to prospective purchasers that the Government Valuation was the market value of the Property.

4.12 The Licensee denies he indicated to any purchaser that the Government Valuation was the market value. The Licensee did however provide prospective purchasers with the Government Valuation which is public knowledge and which the Committee would expect any competent licensee to be aware of and to provide to purchasers.

4.13 The fact that the Licensee provided the Government Valuation to prospective purchasers does not mean that he was indicating that that was the fair market price for the Property. We note in the statement of Mrs. V that she was provided with the Government Valuation by the Licensee and took a view was that it was too low and the Property would sell for more than that.

4.14 Rule 9.13 provides that “A Licensee must submit to the client all offers concerning the sale, purchase, or other disposal of any name or business land, provided such offers are in writing”. This appears to be exactly what the Licensee has undertaken here and the Committee cannot find any fault in his doing so. In fact, if the Licensee had not presented the offers then he would have been in breach of the Rules.

4.15 The fact that the offers were in a similar price range of between $367,000.00 and $405,000.00 and therefore below the Complainant's price expectations was beyond the control of the Licensee and no fault of the Licensee. It may simply reflect what prospective purchasers felt the value of the Property was or that prospective purchasers were trying to get the property for a bargain. There is an old saying “nothing ventured nothing gained”. Alternatively there was nothing to stop the Complainant counter-signing any agreement presented to her at a price she would have been happy to accept.

4.9 The Committee therefore finds this part of the complaint dismissed.

Sold the Property to a Personal Acquaintance

4.10 The Complainant alleges that Mrs. V was known to and was a personal acquaintance of the Licensee, and that the Licensee failed to disclose their relationship and assisted Mrs. V to become the ultimate purchaser of the Property.

4.11 Mrs. V has provided a written statement to the Committee in relation to this matter. In the statement Mrs. V confirms that prior to purchasing the Property she had only met the Licensee twice, when she went through the Property at open homes. Her view of the Licensee was that he was not particularly helpful.

4.12 Mrs. V confirms that she was approached by the Complainant to see whether she was interested in purchasing the Property. Mrs. V advised the Complainant she would not be interested at the price the Complainant was hoping to achieve, believing it too high.

4.13 Again, while the Committee has been provided with an allegation by the Complainant, no supporting evidence has been provided. The only evidence in front of the Committee is the clear statement of Mrs. V, which in part, is not very flattering to the Licensee.

4.14 Again the Complainant has been unable to substantiate this part of her complaint and it is accordingly dismissed.

Auction Process

4.15 The Complainant alleges that at the time of the auction undue pressure was placed on her to sell the Property to Mrs. V.

4.16 The Complainant arrived at the auction rooms together with her son and two cousins. The son however left the auction rooms shortly before the auction started and did not return. It is the evidence of the Licensee that he was taking phone bids, and was not in the presence of, or assisting the Complainant.

4.17 The Committee finds this somewhat unusual considering the Complainant was his client and from the evidence it is clear she is an elderly widow, not in good health and extremely nervous about the auction and its outcome.

4.18 Further in view of her price expectations (which in the Licensee’s opinion were unrealistic) the Committee would have thought it prudent for him to be in close contact with the Complainant so he could assist and take instructions. Notwithstanding all of these reasons the simple fact is the Complainant is the Licensee’s client.

4.19 Evidence from the Licensee's Counsel acknowledges that the Chief Auctioneer observed, shortly after the auction had commenced, that the Complainant was in a distressed state. The auctioneer called a halt to the auction. Members of the Agency staff then escorted the Complainant and her two cousins to a separate room where she could compose herself. Once that was achieved, the auction recommenced.

4.20 The evidence from the Licensee is that he did not see any of these events, as he was taking phone bids, nor was he privy as to what happened in the separate room.

4.21 The Committee finds it extremely hard to accept that the Licensee was unaware that the auction had been stopped. It must have been plainly obvious to other people in the room. There must have been a reason for it.

4.22 The Licensee ought to have seen his client being escorted from the auction room, in a state of extreme distress. And even if he did not, the Committee considers that that would have been an opportune time to enquire of his client as to how she felt the auction was progressing.

4.23 The Licensee’s first duty is to his client. The Committee considers that he should have made enquiries about his client as soon as the auction was stopped. Given that the Complainant was guided from the auction rooms in a state of extreme distress, the Committee simply cannot accept the Licensee’s bland statement that he did not see these crucial events unfold when in all other aspects of this matter he has provided an extremely detailed statement.

4.24 The Licensee’s evidence is that following the Property not reaching reserve at the auction he checked with the other bidders and then advised the Complainant that he would go to the highest bidder to obtain her signature on an agreement. The Licensee returned approximately two hours later and advised the Complainant that this was the best offer and she should accept it.

4.25 Mrs. R, one of the Complainant’s cousins, has a very different view of the events. She states that the Complainant was upset, distressed and crying. One of the Agency staff in the separate room suggested the auction should be stopped as the Complainant was in no condition to carry on.

4.26 The Licensee, if we accept his view of events, would not have been aware of events because he was not present. However it is clear that members of the Agency staff were aware of the Complainant’s distress. It is incomprehensible that the Licensee did not see or was not made aware of Complainant's emotional state, as described by her cousin, before he left to negotiate with the buyer.

4.27 The Licensee returned to the Complainant with a signed offer. The Licensee’s evidence does not state whether he gave any other advice to the Complainant other than to tell her that this was the best offer she could expect.

4.28 There is no suggestion by the Licensee to the Complainant that before she signed the agreement she ought to consult her son, perhaps consider the matter overnight, make a counter offer, or in the circumstances not accept the offer at all.

4.29 There is no evidence before the Committee that there was any deadline for acceptance of the offer or that the prospective purchaser was placing any pressure on the Complainant to sign as a matter of urgency.

4.30 The Licensee was dealing with an elderly and vulnerable person who, to his knowledge, had needed to borrow short-term finance and who felt under financial pressure to sell the Property.

4.31 Incidentally, the Complainant’s view that she simply had to sell the Property was not a view held by her son, which the Licensee was also aware of.

4.32 The son’s view was that there were other options available to his mother should the Property not meet the sale price she sought. The Complainant’s son’s evidence is that he had previously attempted to counsel his mother as to alternatives but his suggestions were rejected by her and the Licensee.

4.33 The onus is always on the Licensee to ensure that they do not put a client under undue or unfair pressure. The risk of undue pressure must increase where the client is elderly, vulnerable, unsure or financially naive.

4.34 There is ample evidence in this matter that the Licensee was dealing with an old vulnerable woman and was well aware of this fact. At the end of the auction the Complainant was clearly distressed. The Complainant’s options should have been outlined in far more detail. Time should have been offered to her and the suggestion of consulting her son should have been put forward. None of this took place and pressure, not particularly subtle at that, was applied to the Complainant to accept the offer the Licensee had obtained from the highest bidder.

4.35 The Committee accepts that any sale of property exposes a seller to a degree of pressure. But the Complainant clearly was not coping. The Licensee had an obligation, in our view, to respond accordingly. He failed to do so. In the Committee’s view, it does not matter whether we describe this as a failure to exercise care (Rule 5.1), or a failure to deal fairly with all parties engaged in a transaction (Rule 6.2), or a failure to act in the best interests of a client (Rule 9.1), or engaging in conduct that would put a client under undue or unfair pressure (Rule 9.2). The outcome is the same.

4.36 The Committee finds the Licensee is guilty of unsatisfactory conduct, under section 72 (b) of the

Act.

4.37 In addition, the Committee considers that the Licensee’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by agents of good standing as being unacceptable, a breach of section 72 (d) of the Act.

The Agency

4.38 In respect to the Agency's involvement in the auction, the Committee notes the steps the Agency took to ensure that the Complainant’s position was protected, once the auctioneer became aware of the Complainant’s increasing level of stress. They stopped the auction and removed her to a separate room. They even suggested the auction be stopped.

4.39 The Committee has considered whether there has been a failure by the Agency to properly supervise and manage the Licensee as the Agency is obliged to do under section 50 of the Act. We note the commentary in the Real Estate Agents Handbook 2013, which states that the section does not prescribe how supervision must take place. Contrast the provisions of the Real Estate Agents Act

1976, which the commentators state effectively required “bricks and mortar” supervision.

4.40 We also note the decision of the Tribunal in Donkin v REAA & Morton-Jones [2012] NZREADT 44, where the Tribunal said it did not consider that a simple assertion that staff had been told to act in a certain way, and then failed to do so, constituted a proper discharge of Section 50 obligations. The Tribunal considered much more was required.

4.41 This case does not involve issues about the general competency of the Licensee. Rather, it involves a failure by a licensee to respond appropriately to a particular situation which presented itself during the course of an auction. Would it be fair to find the Agency guilty of unsatisfactory conduct in such a situation?

4.42 We are advised that the branch manager was present when the written offer from the highest bidder was presented to the Complainant. The branch manager was also present at the pre-auction meeting. However we are not certain whether the branch manager was present throughout the course of the auction. Even if the branch manager was not at the auction, which the Committee would find surprising, there were Agency personnel present with enough senior status to have stopped the auction and suggested it be cancelled in view of the state of the Complainant.

4.43 The decision is a difficult one. On balance, the Committee takes the view that the Agency had ample evidence of the distress of the Complainant and the actions of the Licensee. In these circumstances the Committee view is that that the Agency should have intervened and properly supervised the Licensee.

4.44 Accordingly, their failure to do so means that they have failed to discharge their obligations under

Section 50 and are guilty of unsatisfactory conduct

4.45 There are two further parts to the Complainant’s claim against the Agency.

4.46 First, it did not allow sufficient time for the Complainant to sell her Property and second, the

Agency charged excessive commission.

4.47 Both of these complaints are rejected by the Committee.

4.48 There is nothing to suggest that the time frame to sell the Property was in any way unrealistic.

During the marketing period the Licensee was able to present 5 offers. That would suggest sufficient time was available to generate interest in the Property.

4.49 The second complaint was that the commission was excessive. The Complainant signed a listing form after 24 hours consideration. The commission was Bayleys’ standard rate and was slightly less than what the Agency estimated on the listing authority. It was therefore in no way excessive.

4.50 Accordingly both these complaints against the Agency are dismissed.

The Auctioneer

4.51 The Committee has been advised by the Complainant that her complaint against the auctioneer is withdrawn and accordingly the Committee will take no further action pursuant to section 89(2)(c) of the Act.

5. Decision

5.1 After conducting an inquiry into the complaint, pursuant to section 89(1) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (the Act), the Committee held a hearing with regard to that complaint. In accordance with section 90(1) of the Act, the Committee conducted the hearing on the papers, and pursuant to section 90(2) the Committee’s determination was made on the basis of the written material before it.

5.2 The Committee has determined under section 89(2)(b) of the Act that is has been proved, on the balance of probabilities, that Mark Birdling and Bayleys Real Estate Ltd have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct.

6. Orders

6.1 The Committee will conduct a separate hearing on the papers to decide what orders, if any, should be made under section 93 of the Act.

Section 93 provides:

93 Power of Committee to make orders

(1) If a Committee makes a determination under section 89(2)(b), the Committee may do 1 or more of the following:

(a) make an order censuring or reprimanding the licensee;

(b) order that all or some of the terms of an agreed settlement between the licensee and the complainant are to have effect, by consent, as all or part of a final determination of the complaint;

(c) order that the licensee apologise to the complainant; (d) order that the licensee undergo training or education;

(d) order that the licensee undergo training or education;

(e) order the licensee to reduce, cancel, or refund fees charged for work where that work is the subject of the complaint;

(f) order the licensee:

(i) to rectify, at his or her or its own expense, any error or omission; or

(ii) where it is not practicable to rectify the error or omission, to take steps to provide, at his or her or its own expense, relief, in whole or in part, from the consequences of the error or omission;

(g) order the licensee to pay to the Authority a fine not exceeding $10,000 in the case of an individual or $20,000 in the case of a company;

(h) order the licensee, or the agent for whom the person complained about works, to make his or her business available for inspection or take advice in relation to management from persons specified in the order;

(i) order the licensee to pay the complainant any costs or expenses incurred in respect of the inquiry, investigation, or hearing by the Committee.

(2) An order under this section may be made on and subject to any terms and conditions that the Committee thinks fit.

6.2 The Committee requires the Case Manager to obtain a record of any previous disciplinary decision in respect of the Licensee under either the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 or the Act, if any such decision exists, and provide it to the Committee.

6.3 The Licensee and the Complainant may file submissions on what orders, if any should be made.

The Complainant may file submissions within 10 working days from the date of the decision. These submissions, if any, will then be provided to the Licensee, with a timeframe for filing final submissions.

7. Publication

7.1 One of the Committee’s functions pursuant to section 78(h) of the Act is to publish its decisions.

7.2 The Committee has deferred making any decision on publication until its hearing to decide what orders, if any, should be made.

8. Right of Appeal

8.1 A person affected by a determination of a Complaints Assessment Committee may appeal by way of written notice to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) against a determination of the Committee and must do so within 20 working days from the date of the determination.

8.2 The Committee has yet to finally determine this complaint because the parties are being given an opportunity to make submissions on orders before the Committee determines what orders should be made, if any.

8.3 The Committee considers that the 20 working day appeal period does not commence until it has finally determined this complaint by deciding what orders should be made, if any.

8.4 Appeal is by way of written notice to the Tribunal. Further information on filing an appeal is available by referring to the Guide to Filing an Appeal at www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals.

Signed

Michael Vallant

Chairperson

Complaints Assessment Committee

Real Estate Agents Authority

Date: 29 November 2013