Parore - Complaint No C16770 [2017] NZREAA 189 (19 May 2017)

Last Updated: 20 June 2018

Before the Complaints Assessment Committee

Complaint No: C16770

In the matter of

Part 4 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

Licensee 1: Maxwell (Ric) Parore (10000254)

Licensee 2: Licensee 2

The Agency: The Agency

Decision to take no further action in the matter of Licensee 2 and the

Agency

and

Decision finding unsatisfactory conduct in the matter of Maxwell (Ric) Parore

19 May 2017

Members of Complaints Assessment Committee: CAC409

Chairperson: Jane Ross

Deputy Chairperson: Peter Brock

Panel Member: Josephine O'Donnell

Complaints Assessment Committee

1. The Complaint

1.1. On 15 September 2016 the Real Estate Agents Authority (the Authority) received a complaint against Maxwell (Ric) Parore (Licensee 1) from the Complainant.

1.2. The Committee considered the complaint also raised issues about Licensee 2 and The

Agency) and decided to inquire into them under section 78(b) of the Act.

1.3. Licensee 1 and Licensee 2 are licensed Salespersons under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (the Act) and, at the time of the conduct, Licensee 1 was engaged by Barfoot and Thompson Ltd.

1.4. The Agency is a licensed Company Agent under the Act.

1.5. The complaint relates to the Property.

1.6. The details of the complaint are that Licensee 1 didn’t allow the Complainant to view the entire property, that he misrepresented the Property by stating it was in the zone for Girls Grammar school A, that he said there was a separate power meter for each room and that the detached unit had two bedrooms, and that he failed to advise the Complainant to seek legal advice. The complaint against the Agency is that the Agency failed to respond to the Complainant’s complaint to the Agency.

1.7. The Complainant cancelled the unconditional agreement for sale and purchase (ASP) on the basis of the misrepresentations made by Licensee 1 and suffered financial losses as a consequence of the transaction not proceeding.

1.8. In particular, the Complainant advised that

1. He and his wife arranged a viewing of the Property but when they arrived at the Property Licensee 1 advised they could not view most of the rooms and units as they were all tenanted, and they were only able to view the outside of the buildings and the common areas. He says they were not advised of this at the time his wife made the appointment to view and states they were unable to fully view the Property prior to signing the ASP.
   
2. Prior to signing the ASP, he presented a document to Licensee 1 asking questions about the Property to which Licensee 1 provided a written response. Licensee 1 signed the document confirming that the Property was in City Grammar and Girls Grammar School A school zones and that there was a separate power meter for each room. These representations induced the Complainant to purchase the Property and subsequent to signing the ASP he discovered the Property is not in Girls Grammar School A zone and there was not a separate power meter for each room.
   

100. Licensee 1 confirmed verbally to him that there was a detached two bedroom unit in addition to the main house but, on inspection, the detached unit was discovered to have only one bedroom.
     

d) Licensee 1 did not advise him to seek legal advice prior to entering into the ASP.

5. The Agency failed to respond satisfactorily to his complaint made through the in-house complaints process and both the Head Office Manager and the Branch Manager

“ignored” his case.

1.9. The Complainant requested a remedy, being:

1. Reimbursement of $3,400.00 additional legal costs incurred “...in this transaction”, plus the interest lost on that money.
   
2. Reimbursement of $15,517.60 being the cost of the fee for breaking his ANZ loan agreement, plus the interest lost on that money.
   

c) Reimbursement of the interest lost on the $300,000 deposit paid for the Property on 19

November 2015 and refunded on 11 February 2015.

1.10. The Licensees responded to the complaint against them.

Response: Licensee 1

1.11. Licensee 1 responded to the complaint against him. In particular, the Licensee commented that:

1. He was the primary licensee involved with the Complainant and the subsequent sale of the Property.
   

b) The first contact he had was with the Complainant’s wife, who text messaged him on 8

October 2015 to arrange a viewing of the Property. He arranged to meet the Complainant and his wife at the Property on 10 October 2015 and passed them the written property information he made available to all prospective purchasers. The Complainant and his wife were supplied with the City Council CD of information for the Property including the LIM report, plus the Tenancy Schedule stating the total number of units and bedrooms and the rentals for each unit. He also advised them to carry out

their own research on the Property.

100. The vendor’s instructions from day one had been that internal viewing was restricted to Friday mornings and only two units were able to be viewed as all the units were tenanted by long-term tenants and the vendor did not want them disturbed. The Licensee states that all units were in a similar, poor state of repair and he believed no upgrading had been carried out for many years. He says that he advised all prospective

purchasers of the viewing arrangements and believes he acted in the best interests of all.

4. The Complainant was only available to view the Property on Saturdays due to his work commitments and the Licensee says that prior to the ASP being completed the Complainant returned one Saturday with his own builder to have a look around. The Licensee says two units were able to be inspected and the Complainant and his builder spent a lot of time inspecting the exterior of the Property. He says he does not recall the date of this inspection and did not know the identity of the builder as the arrangement was made by the Complainant. He says a further building inspection was carried out prior to settlement date and that the Complainant was present for both building inspections.
   
5. He accepts he made a mistake in responding to the Complainant’s written questions about school zoning. The Complainant asked if the Property was in the “double

grammar” school zone specifically mentioning City Boys Grammar and Girls Grammar School A to which the Licensee responded “Yes” when in fact the zoning was for City Boys Grammar and City Girls Grammar, not Girls Grammar school A. The Licensee says he did, however, advise the Complainant to undertake his own investigations.

6. In response to the Complainant’s question about separate power meters for each room he says “...the separate power metres in the boarding house were downstairs outside the bathroom” and that they were shown to the Complainant.
   
7. The Complainant was advised verbally that the rear unit was one bedroom but was also supplied with a copy of the Tenancy Schedule which records the number of bedrooms and the rental for each of the units. He says it clearly states on that schedule that the rear unit was one bedroom.
   
8. He found communication with the Complainant and his wife difficult but does not consider he failed in his duty to advise them to seek legal advice and recalled the Complainant informing him they would speak to their solicitor and show him the ASP which the Licensee considered sufficient in that regard.
   

Response: Licensee 2

1.12. Licensee 2 responded to the complaint against him. In particular, the Licensee commented that:

a) Licensee 1 secured the agency agreement for two adjoining properties being Property 1 and the Property. Due to the significant commercial component of the properties, Licensee 2 was invited to market the properties jointly with Licensee 1. Licensee 2’s focus was Property 1 as it was more commercial having four retail shops on the ground floor.

b) The two properties were promoted for sale by tender with a closing date of 9 April 2015 on the basis that they could be purchased either together or separately but the tender was not successful.

c) He and Licensee 1 were later instructed to market the two properties at fixed prices, the Complainant contacted Licensee 1 and he negotiated the ASP. He states he never met, nor had any contact with, the Complainant.

d) The Property was never advertised as being in the Girls Grammar school A zone and he never made representations that it was in that zone. He states the Information Memorandum for the Property makes no reference to school zones and his target markets were investors or developers catering for university students and/or hospital staff.

e) The Property was never advertised as having separate power meters, he never made any representations that it had separate power meters and the Information Memorandum makes no reference to power meters.

f) The detached unit at the Property was never advertised as two bedrooms and in the Tenancy Schedule included in the Information Memorandum, unit 9 is clearly identified as having one bedroom. The floor plans for the Property were marked in the Information

Memorandum as ”available by request” and the detached unit is clearly labelled as

”Apartment 9” on the plan.

g) Licensee 1 wrote a note to the Complainants dated 11 October 2015 implying both Licensee 1 and Licensee 2 had each agreed to a $2,500 payment to the Complainant payable at the completion of the transaction. Licensee 2 confirmed that he had not been aware of that agreement and was not advised of it until after the transaction had been finalised.

Response: Agency

1.13. The Agency responded to the complaint against it. In particular, the Agency commented that:

1. It was made aware of the Complainant’s concerns on 5 May 2016 when it received correspondence from him dated 28 April 2016. That correspondence enclosed a copy of an undated letter addressed to the Agency’s Branch Manager, a copy of a page of six questions and answers signed by Licensee 1 and dated 11 October 2015, a copy of a hand written note signed by Licensee 1 detailing an agreement that he and an unnamed colleague would each refund the sum of $2,500 at the completion of the transaction for the Property, a copy of the ASP for the Property and letters relating to legal fees and interest costs.
   
2. It recorded the Complainant’s letter of 5 May 2016 in its complaints register and on- forwarded it and the material with it to the Branch Manager for his attention and response to the Complainant.
   

100. It responded to the Complainant in a letter dated 6 May 2016 acknowledging receipt of his complaint, enclosing a copy of the Agency’s in-house complaint process and advising that the matter had been referred to the Branch manager for his action.
     

4. The Branch Manager contacted the Complainant by phone offering to pay his legal fees but the Complainant declined to accept that offer and insisted that the interest payments on his loan also be covered.
   
5. The Complainant emailed the Agency on 14 August 2016 advising that as he had not heard from either the Agency or the Branch Manager since the 6 May 2016 acknowledgement letter, he intended to escalate the matter to the REAA unless a response was provided immediately.
   
6. It responded two days later formally advising that the offer of $3,400 from the Branch Manager was still open to the Complainant as a full and final settlement but the email address was rejected and the message was subsequently resent to an alternative address sourced from Licensee 1’s file for the Property.
   

g) The deposit was fully refunded to the Complainant.

2. What we decided

2.1. On 27 October 2016 the Complaints Assessment Committee (the Committee) considered the complaint and decided to inquire into it under section 79(2)(e) of the Act.

2.2. On 7 March 2017 the Committee held a hearing on the papers and considered all the information that had been gathered during the inquiry.

Licensee 1

2.3. The Committee found the Licensee has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under section

89(2)(b) of the Act. The decision was also made with reference to the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules, rule 5.1 (skill, care, competence), rule 6.2 (good faith), rule 6.4 (mislead), rule 9.1(client’s instructions) and rule 9.7 (legal advice).

Licensee 2

2.4. On 7 March 2017 the Committee decided to take no further action on this complaint against

Licensee 2.

2.5. This decision was made under section 89(2)(c) of the Act. The decision was also made with reference to the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012.

The Agency

2.6. On 7 March 2017 the Committee decided to take no further action on this complaint against the Agency.

2.7. This decision was made under section 89(2)(c) of the Act. The decision was also made with reference to the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012, rule 5.1 (skill, care, competence), rule 12.1(complaints and dispute resolution).

3. Our reasons for the decision

3.1. On the complaint against Licensee 1, the Committee found, pursuant to section 72 of the Act, the conduct of the Licensee in respect of one ground of complaint falls short of the standard that a reasonable member of the public is entitled to expect from a reasonably competent licensee and is negligent.

3.2. The Committee decided:

Property viewing

3.3. The vendor had the right to restrict viewings of the Property to certain times and to just two units to protect the interests of his tenants and Licensee 1 had an obligation to act in accordance with his client’s instructions unless to do so would be contrary to law (Rule 9.1). The Licensee also had a duty to act in good faith and deal fairly with all parties (Rule 6.2) and he states he complied with this duty by advising all potential purchasers of the viewing arrangements.

3.4. The Complainants say they were not advised until they arrived at the Property that they

could only have a partial viewing and that they did not fully view the Property prior to signing the ASP. Licensee 1 says he “...advised all clients ...” of the restrictions around viewing the Property but he does not relate his answer specifically to the allegation the Complainants were not advised of this until they arrived at the Property. The Committee does know when Licensee 1 advised the Complainants of the viewing restrictions but notes the viewing arrangements were in line with the vendor’s instructions. The Committee also notes the Complainant was limited in the times that he was available to view the Property but did make several visits to the Property including an inspection with a builder prior to signing the ASP. The Complainant’s offer did not include a building inspection condition or any condition related to viewing the Property more fully from which the Committee can infer the

Complainant was satisfied with what he had seen of the Property.

3.5. Had Licensee 1 not advised of the limited viewing prior to the Complainant arriving at the Property, the Committee considers this would have been poor business practice but does not consider this would meet the threshold for unsatisfactory conduct and takes no further

action on this aspect of the complaint.

School zoning

3.6. The Property was not advertised or promoted in relation to any school zoning but prior to signing the ASP the Complainant asked Licensee 1 for a written response to questions about the Property including a question in relation to school zoning. The question asked “Is the house in double grammar school zone (City boy grammar and girl grammar school A)” and the Licensee responded “yes”.

3.7. The Committee considers the question and answer were clearly of significance to the Complainant, as evidenced by the specific request for a written and signed response, and the Complainant states he relied on the information when making his decision to purchase the Property. Licensee 1 had a duty to ensure the information he gave in this respect was correct. The zoning for the Property is in fact for City Boys Grammar and City Girls Grammar (a decile

3 school compared to Girls Grammar School A which is a decile 9 school). The Licensee did not check the zoning and admits his mistake.

3.8. The Committee accepts Licensee 1 did not deliberately mislead the Complainant but his mistake (and failure to check the correct zoning before making the statement) was negligent and did mislead the Complainant. The Committee finds the Licensee did not exercise skill, care and competence in this respect (Rule 5.1) and has misled the Complainant (Rule 6.4).

Separate power meters

3.9. The Complainant’s questions presented to Licensee 1 prior to signing the ASP included a question “Is The power meter separated for each room?” to which Licensee 1 responded “Yes, tenants have their own power meters, landlord has his power meter as well.” In his response to the complaint Licensee 1 says there were separate power meters in the boarding house outside the bathroom.

3.10. The Complainant alleges each room does not have a separate power meter and the representation induced him to purchase the Property.

3.11. The Committee acknowledges Licensee 1’s comment that communication with the Complainant and his wife was difficult and notes that the Complainant’s question itself is ambiguous. The Property is classed as nine units (two of which have more than one bedroom) but the Complainant refers to “rooms” rather than “units” and it is unclear if he references the boarding house and the detached unit or just rooms within the boarding house. Licensee 1’s written response is also somewhat ambiguous and doesn’t appear to specifically address the Complainant’s question.

3.12. Licensee 1 states the power meters were downstairs in the boarding house outside the bathroom and were shown to the Complainant. The Committee considers the best interpretation it can make of the question and answer is that the question and answer refers to rooms in the boarding house.

3.13. The Complainant has the burden of proving the allegation there was a misrepresentation about separate power meters. The allegation is not proved. The Committee takes no further

action in respect of this aspect of the complaint.

Detached unit

3.14. The Complainant’s question to Licensee 1 in respect of bedrooms in the detached unit was verbal as was the Licensee’s alleged response. The Complainant states Licensee 1 told him the unit had two bedrooms and Licensee 1 denies this saying the Complainant had been given a copy of the Tenancy Schedule which “clearly states the number of bedrooms and rental”. The Committee notes the detached unit is referred to as Apartment 9 on the floor plans which Licensee 2 says were identified as “Available by Request” in the Information Memorandum.

On the Tenancy Schedule unit 9 is listed as having one bedroom with the floor plans showing it as approximately 30m2 in size.

3.15. The Committee has not been advised whether or not the Complainant requested or received a copy of the floor plans and whether or not the Complainant was advised the detached unit was known as unit 9 on the tenancy schedule. The Committee does consider the Tenancy Schedule clearly states one bedroom for unit 9, but that, absent the floor plans or specific advice, it would be unclear which unit was being referred to as unit 9.

3.16. The Tenancy Schedule does clearly state the total number of units and bedrooms at the

Property and the individual and total rentals received per week for the Property.

3.17. It would have been preferable for Licensee 1 to have been more specific in his response to this ground of complaint and to have said whether he provided a copy of the floor plans to the Complainant. An inexact response to an allegation increases the risk for a licensee of a finding of unsatisfactory conduct. The Committee is left with a situation where the

Complainant alleges a misrepresentation and Licensee 1 denies it. There is no other evidence that assists the Committee in making a call on which version is correct so it does not find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.

3.18. If the Licensee misrepresented that a detached unit had two bedrooms when it had one the Committee would not consider the representation to be material because the tenancy schedule gave the Complainant the correct information about the number of bedrooms in each unit, so the Complainant could not have been misled on this matter.

3.19. The Committee takes no further action on this allegation. It is not satisfied it is proved on the balance of probabilities. If it was satisfied the allegation was proved it would still take no further action because the misrepresentation could not have had any material effect on the Complainants decision to purchase the Property.

Legal advice

3.20. The Complainant’s original complaint to the Authority did not address the issue of legal advice but it was raised as an aside during the investigation with the Complainant stating “And he never suggested us to seek legal advice” in an email to an Authority facilitator dated

28 September 2016. Licensee 1 states he advised the Complainant to do his own research on the Property and that the Complainant told him he was going to “show the contract to his Solicitor” which Licensee 1 says he considered sufficient in respect of legal advice.

3.21. The Complainant says that on 11 October 2015 when the ASP was signed, Licensee 1 came to the Complainant’s house for discussion and negotiation and “we spent quite long time..” but the Committee notes that 11 October 2015 was a Sunday and it would be unlikely the Complainant was able to contact his solicitor that day before signing the ASP should he have wished to. The Committee considers the Complainant’s statement that he would “show the

contract to his Solicitor” most likely referred to the Complainant showing his solicitor the signed ASP, rather than taking the ASP to his solicitor for advice prior to signing it.

3.22. The Committee notes the ASP for the Property was signed at $3,100,000 and that Licensee 1 subsequently advised the Complainant and his wife of another property for sale in the area priced around $4,000,000 - $5,000,000 in which they expressed an interest. The Committee considers buyers potentially committing to investments totaling some $8,000,000 are unlikely to be inexperienced investors and would likely be consulting with a solicitor. The Committee also notes Licensee 1 completed a Transaction Report dated the same day as the ASP and ticked “yes” to the statement “Customer advised that they may seek independent advice”.

3.23. Licensee 1 had a duty to recommend that the Complainant seek legal advice prior to signing the ASP (Rule 9.7). The initial complaint did not include a complaint that License 1 had not recommended the Complainant take legal advice. The allegation does not include any factual context. Licensee 1 has indicated in his statement and in the Transaction Report that he did make the recommendation. The Committee does not find the Complainant’s allegation in respect of legal advice to be proved and takes no further action in respect of this aspect of the complaint.

Refund to Complainant

3.24. Licensee 1 presented the Complainant with a signed and dated agreement stating that Licensee 1 and an unnamed colleague would each pay a refund to the Complainant of $2,500 at the completion of the transaction for the Property. The agreement was not part of the ASP and was on an otherwise blank piece of paper. The Committee notes the agreement is unlikely to have been enforceable by the Complainant in the event the sale had concluded successfully and that Licensee 2 was not named, nor could he have been obliged to pay the Complainant in an agreement made without Licensee 2’s knowledge or consent.

3.25. The Committee considers it would not be unusual for a licensee to offer a purchaser an incentive to close a sale, but to do so outside of the Agency and in the manner that Licensee

1 did was not only inadvisable but is likely to have ended badly for the Complainant should he have tried to enforce the agreement. The Committee considered Rule 5.1 and Rule 6.2 in respect of Licensee 1’s actions in this regard but does not find the Licensee’s conduct reaches the threshold for unsatisfactory conduct. The Committee, however, does strongly caution the Licensee against acting in this manner in the future.

3.26. On the complaint against Licensee 2, the Committee concluded:

3.27. It joined Licensee 2 to the complaint on the basis that he was a joint lister and marketer for the two properties, comprising the Property and Property 1, with Licensee 1. Licensee 2 has established that his focus was on the commercial aspect of the listing which was the property at Property 1.

3.28. Although the two properties were initially marketed as “one package” they were subsequently offered separately at fixed prices and Licensee 1 was the contact for customers interested in the Property. Licensee 2 states the Complainant contacted Licensee 1 in order to inspect the Property and Licensee 1 negotiated the ASP with the Complainant and the

vendor. Licensee 2 says he never met the Complainant nor had any contact with him.

3.29. Licensee 2 states the Property was not advertised or represented by him to be in Girls Grammar School A zone and neither did any advertising or representation made by him refer to power meters or the number of bedrooms in the detached unit at the Property.

3.30. Licensee 2 states he was not aware of the arrangement made by Licensee 1 to include him in a refund to the Complainant post sale of $2,500 from each licensee and that he was not advised of that arrangement until after the transaction had been finalised.

3.31. It is satisfied Licensee 2 did not have any involvement in the transaction with the Complainant in respect of the Property and was not responsible for any misrepresentations allegedly made in respect of the Property and it takes no further action in relation to Licensee

2.

3.32. On the complaint against the Agency, the Committee concluded:

3.33. It joined the Agency to the complaint in response to the Complainant’s comment that “Both branch manager and head office manager ignored the case”. The Complainant’s first letter was sent to the Agency’s Branch Manager but is undated. The Committee has no evidence of when this letter was sent or if it was received by the Branch Manager. The Agency was first notified of the complaint on 5 May 2016 and responded on 6 May 2016 advising the Complainant the matter had been referred back to the Branch Manager for his action and enclosing a copy of the Agency’s in-house complaint process.

3.34. The Branch Manager advised the Agency on 6 May 2016 that he was prepared to refund the Complainant’s legal costs and the Committee is advised he verbally made this offer to the Complainant but that it was initially rejected as the Complainant also sought reimbursement of bank fees and interest payments. The offer was subsequently re-presented to the Complainant on 16 August 2016 by the Agency in an email and was accepted.

3.35. It notes there was a time period of over three months between the Agency’s initial response of 6 May 2016 and its formal offer of reimbursement on 16 August 2016 and considers that best practice would have been for a follow up with the Complainant to have been made sooner by the Agency. The Committee, however, does not consider the delay constitutes unsatisfactory conduct and is satisfied the Agency did respond to the Complainant’s complaint and ensured he was supplied with a copy of the Agency’s in-house complaint process. The Committee takes no further action in relation to the Agency.

4. Request for submissions on orders: Licensee 1

4.1. The Complainant is to file submissions (if any) on what orders should be made within ten working days (by 2 June 2017) from the date of this decision. These submissions, if any, will then be provided to the Licensee, with a timeframe for filing final submissions.

4.2. The Committee requires the CAC Administrator to obtain a record of any previous disciplinary decision in respect of the Licensee and, if any such decision exists, provide it to the Committee.

5. What happens next

5.1. The Committee will consider all submissions and issue a decision on orders.

6. Your right to appeal

6.1. In the matter of Licensee 1, the Committee considers the 20 working day appeal period does not commence until it has finally determined the complaint by deciding what orders should be made, if any.

6.2. In the matter of Licensee 2, if you are affected by this decision you may appeal in writing to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) within 20 working days after the date of this decision. Your appeal must include a copy of this decision and any other information you wish to the Tribunal to consider in relation to the appeal. Refer to Appendix section 111.

6.3. For further information on filing an appeal, read Guide to Filing an Appeal at Mi ni stry of

J usti ce -Tri bunal s ( ww w. justi ce. g ov t. nz/ tri bunal s ) .

7. Publication

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

Signed

Jane Ross

Date: 19 May 2017

Appendix 1: Relevant provisions

The Real Estate Agents Act 2008 provides:

89 Power of Committee to determine complaint or allegation

(1) A Committee may make 1 or more of the determinations described in subsection (2) after both inquiring into a complaint or allegation and conducting a hearing with regard to that complaint or allegation.

(2) The determinations that the Committee may make are as follows:

(a) a determination that the complaint or allegation be considered by the Disciplinary

Tribunal:

(b) a determination that it has been proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the licensee has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct:

(c) a determination that the Committee take no further action with regard to the complaint or allegation or any issue involved in the complaint or allegation.

(3) Nothing in this section limits the power of the Committee to make, at any time, a decision under section 80 with regard to a complaint.

72 Unsatisfactory conduct

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.

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;

(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.

111 Appeal to Tribunal against determination by Committee

(1) A person affected by a determination of a Committee may appeal to the Tribunal against a determination of the Committee within 20 working days after the date of the notice given under section 81 or 94.

(2) The appeal is by way of written notice to the Tribunal of the appellant's intention to appeal, accompanied by—

(a) a copy of the notice given to the person under section 81 or 94; and

(b) any other information that the appellant wishes the Tribunal to consider in relation to the appeal.

(3) The appeal is by way of rehearing.

(4) After considering the appeal, the Tribunal may confirm, reverse, or modify the determination of the Committee.

(5) If the Tribunal reverses or modifies a determination of the Committee, it may exercise any of the powers that the Committee could have exercised.

The relevant provisions from the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules

2012 are:

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.

6.4 A licensee must not mislead a customer or client, nor provide false information, nor withhold information that should by law or in fairness be provided to a customer or client.

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.

9.7 Before a prospective client, client, or customer signs an agency agreement, a sale and purchase agreement, or other contractual document, a licensee must—

(a) recommend that the person seek legal advice; and

(b) ensure that the person is aware that he or she can, and may need to, seek technical or other advice and information; and

(c) allow that person a reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).

12.1 An agent must develop and maintain written in-house procedures for dealing with complaints and dispute resolution. A copy of these procedures must be available to clients and consumers.