Complaint No C23011 [2018] NZREAA 30 (11 June 2018)

Last Updated: 30 July 2018

Before the Complaints Assessment Committee

	Complaint No: C23011
In the Matter of	Part 4 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008
and
Licensee 1:	Licensee 1 (XXXXXXXX)
Licensee 2:	Licensee 2 (XXXXXXXX)

Decision to take no further action

11 June 2018

Members of Complaints Assessment Committee: CAC 409

Chairperson: Jane Ross

Deputy Chairperson: Peter Brock

Panel Member: Josephine O’Donnell

Complaints Assessment Committee

Decision to take no further action

1. The Complaint

1.1. On 24 October 2017 the Real Estate Agents Authority (the Authority) received a complaint against Licensee 1 and Licensee 2 from the Complainant.

1.2. Licensee 1 is a licensed Salesperson under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (the Act) and at the time of the conduct was employed by the Agency.

1.3. Licensee 2 surrendered her licence from 1 April 2017 but at the time of the conduct was employed as a licensed Salesperson by the Agency.

1.4. The complaint relates to a residential property (the Property).

1.5. The details of the complaint are that the Complainant purchased the Property in October 2007 through Licensee 1 and Licensee 2. He was in the process of re-cladding the Property in early

2017 when he was advised there was a full builder’s report provided to Licensee 1 and Licensee

2 dated 9 July 2007, prior to him purchasing the Property. To the best of his knowledge he was not informed of that report and, had he been aware of the report, he would not have purchased the Property.

1.6. In particular, the Complainant advised that:

1.7. He undertook a visual inspection of the Property when he purchased it and identified some issues with dampness in a downstairs corner, some moisture upstairs by doors to decking, and an outside tap hanging loose. He pointed out the issues he identified to Licensee 1 and assumed this was the full extent of the issues.

1.8. Licensee 1 did not suggest he get a building report. He did not get a usual building inspection but he did obtain a structural inspection as he was concerned about the Property being on a slope. The house at the Property was fundamentally fine and was not going to fall down. He was aware he was buying a problem when he purchased the Property but was not aware of the extent of the problem. He thought he was buying some minor issues and that the Property could do with repainting.

1.9. He believed there may be some concerns about the interpretation of the clause in the ASP

relating to defects but that he was not debating this.

1.10. Some 4-5 years into his ownership of the Property he noticed mould on one inside wall of the Property and clear water damage which was extensive in one section. He knew that to sell the Property at its full value it would possibly need to be re-clad and the re-cladding process was started in January – February 2017. When the cladding was removed, it was apparent there were further issues and that more work was needed. He wanted an independent assessment of whether work that was proposed was fair and reasonable, and in August 2017 he contacted a building consultant agency (Company Z) and a building inspector (the Inspector) as he is an expert in his field.

1.11. The Inspector told him that Licensee 1 was “fully aware” of a weather-tightness report (a damming report) dated 9 July 2007 that Company Z had produced for previous purchasers (the Report). He was not sure if the Agency had a copy of the Report but said that Licensee 1 and the Agency knew the reason the previous sale fell through.

1.12. He considers Licensee 1 was aware of significantly more issues than advised and that Licensee

1 knew a previous sale of the Property was cancelled based on those issues. He was aware

that the house was potentially leaky when he purchased it and that it would require remedial action over time, but believes the issues identified in the Report were intentionally withheld from him. Had he known the contents of the Report and been aware of the condition of the house to the same level as Licensee 1 was, he would not have purchased the Property.

1.13. He made a complaint to the Agency on 3 September 2017 but did not receive a response.

1.14. He made the complaint [to the Authority] as he considers Licensee 1 and Licensee 2 are bound by the Rules of the Act [being the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012] (the Rules), specifically quoting Rule 6.2 (act in good faith and deal fairly), Rule 6.4 (not mislead) and Rule 10.7(b) (inform of significant potential risk).

1.15. The Complainant requested a remedy, being:

(a) That this not happen to anyone else.

1.16. Licensees 1 and 2 were co-listing agents of the Property and responded jointly to the complaint against them. Licensees 1 and 2 commented that:

(a) Given the time lapse of 10 years from the sale of the Property until the complaint, they and the Agency (for whom they no longer work) have only minimal documentation relating to the sale. They accept the documents submitted by the Complainant being the sale and purchase agreement (ASP) dated 29 October 2017 [27 October 2007], the Property Information Pack including plans, the LIM report, and Licensee Information.

(b) Despite having no recollection of the transaction for the Property, given the time frame, it has always been, and continues to be, their practice and that of the Agency’s to fully disclose any information about reports or any material information they held about a property to prospective purchasers. They cannot verify they did so in this case but see no reason why they would have acted differently at that time.

(c) As can be seen under Further Terms of Sale in the ASP, they paid special attention to weather-tightness issues with a clause that was initialed by the vendor and the Complainant reinforcing the fact the Complainant was indeed aware he was buying a property with a profile prone to weather-tightness issues.

(d) While there was some information about structures with weather-tightness issues available when the Property was sold, not all the information now known was available at that time and it was possible for a purchaser to buy a property and later discover that the cost of remedy was greater than first thought.

(e) While the Complainant acknowledges he was aware of issues at the time of the sale, they would not have been aware of the total cost of remediation at that time. They would, however, have been doing all that they could to protect the Complainant by inserting the relevant clause.

(f) They note that the Complainant says they are required to adhere to Rules 6.2, 6.4 and

10.7(b) of the Rules and point out that those rules were not in fact in place at the time of the sale of the Property. They acknowledge that they were governed by Sections 9 and 14 of the Fair Trading Act (FTA) and the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand (REINZ) Code of Ethics 13.2 (fidelity) and 13.13 (fair and just). They were fully aware of their obligations at the time and it was always their practice, and that of the Agency’s, to act in a way that complied with those obligations.

(g) It has always been their policy, and that of the Agency’s, to strongly recommend a builder’s report for all monolithic buildings and they would have followed this practice when explaining the weather-tightness clause to the Complainant. They note the investigation refers to the clause as being an “as is” clause and say it was not inserted as

an “as is” clause but to alert the Complainant to the issues that may be associated with monolithic cladding construction. Had an “as is” clause been used, clause 6 of the ASP relating to vendor warranties would have needed to have been struck out.

(h) They note the Complainant says the Inspector told the Complainant that Licensee 1 was fully aware of the Report and that the Inspector also alleged that the Agency knew the reason the previous sale fell through. They cannot recall the details of the transaction but Licensee 1 was usually present at property inspections, although in most cases inspectors do not disclose the result of their inspections to licensees as a report belongs to the prospective purchaser who commissioned it.

(i) They are absolutely positive they did not receive a copy of the Report, and had they done so they would have been extremely concerned and taken the matter up with the Agency and the vendor. Their policy at that time would have been not to proceed with marketing the Property had the report been received.

(j) They point out there has been an inordinate amount of time between the Complainant purchasing the Property and doing remediation work on it. In their opinion there would have been a great deal of deterioration and damage done since the sale which the Complainant may well have prevented by addressing remediation earlier.

(k) They regret the situation the Complainant finds himself in and that he feels aggrieved with them and perceives that his circumstances and aspects of the transactions are linked to their conduct. They emphasise that at all times their relationship with the Complainant would have been professional and empathetic and that they would have done all they could to act in good faith and fairly towards the Complainant.

Third Parties’ Responses

The Inspector:

1.17. He says the Complainant employed him to do some work on the Property and he realised he had been to the Property before and had an obligation to disclose this to the Complainant. He gave the Complainant a copy of the Report in late 2017.

1.18. The Inspector stated that prior to the Complainant purchasing the Property another party had requested he complete a building inspection of the Property. As per the Report he met Licensee 1 at the Property and as he inspected the Property Licensee 1 supervised him and “would have been aware” of any issues in respect of weather-tightness that he identified.

1.19. The Inspector stated that Licensee 1 “would have been” in discussion with the party who had requested the Report and would have been aware of any reasons why that party did not wish to proceed with the purchase. The Inspector was not aware if there was an ASP in place at that time.

1.20. The Inspector advised it would be hard to believe that Licensee 1 was not aware of what was in the Report but said that he did not give a copy of the Report to Licensee 1 or the Agency, although Licensee 1 may have seen it or obtained a copy from the previous purchaser.

1.21. The Inspector noted that if the sale to the previous purchaser did not proceed as a result of the

Report, this would have been an alert to Licensee 1 and the Agency to investigate further.

Previous purchaser:

1.22. The Committee’s investigator spoke to the previous purchaser of the Property in relation to the attempt by him and his wife to purchase the Property in 2007. He advised he was reluctant to discuss the circumstances as it was a nasty situation that caused a number of issues and not something that he or his wife would want to revisit.

1.23. He declined to co-operate further but did confirm they had an ASP for the Property in 2007 through Licensee 1 and the Agency. He said the ASP was conditional on a builder’s report which was unsatisfactory and the agreement was subsequently cancelled. He was not sure what information was passed onto Licensee 1 or the Agency in this regard, as it was handled by his solicitor.

The vendor’s solicitor:

1.24. The investigator spoke to the firm of solicitors who acted for the vendor in the sale of the Property in 2007. The individual solicitor who acted for the vendor was no longer employed at the firm but the investigator was advised the firm’s records showed that the ASP for the previous purchaser (who commissioned the Report) was cancelled due to finance, there was no mention of a building report, and a standard letter was sent to the Agency that the agreement was at an end.

1.25. The investigator asked for more detail regarding the transaction but received no further communication from the solicitors.

2. What we decided

2.1. Section 172 of the Act - Allegations relating to conduct that occurred prior to commencement of the Act on 19 November 2009:

2.2. A Complaints Assessment Committee may consider a complaint against a licensee or former licensee in respect of conduct alleged to have occurred before the commencement of the Act but only if the CAC is satisfied that, -

(a) at the time of the occurrence of the conduct, the licensee or former licensee was licensed or approved under the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 and could have been complained about or charged under that Act in respect of that conduct; and

(b) the licensee or former licensee has not been dealt with under the Real Estate Agents Act

1976 in respect of that conduct.

2.3. The Complaints Assessment Committee (the Committee) finds that Licensee 1 and Licensee 2 were both licensed salespeople at the time of the alleged conduct in October 2007, and that the alleged conduct was not dealt with under the Real Estate Agents Act 1976.

2.4. On 7 December 2017 the Committee considered the complaint and decided to inquire into it under section 78(a) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (the Act).

2.5. On 24 April 2018 the Committee held a hearing on the papers and considered all the information gathered during the inquiry.

2.6. The Committee was required to consider if the alleged conduct would amount to unsatisfactory conduct or misconduct under the 2008 Act.

2.7. Although the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2012 (the

Rules) were not in force at the time of the conduct being investigated (in 2007 Licensees 1 and

2 were governed by the Real Estate Agents Act 1976), the Committee is required to assess whether the conduct of Licensee 1 and Licensee 2 is unsatisfactory conduct or misconduct under the Act. This includes assessing the conduct against the relevant Rules.

2.8. The Committee has decided to take no further action on the complaint.

2.9. 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.

3. Our reasons for the decision

3.1. The Committee concluded:

(a) It is not proved that Licensees 1 and 2 were privy to the contents of the Report at the time the Property was sold to the Complainant, in October 2007.

(b) It is not proved Licensees 1 and 2 failed to disclose known defects to the Complainant when he purchased the Property.

3.2. The Committee also considered the weather-tightness clause in the ASP, and the Complainant’s comment that the Agency did not respond to his complaint.

3.3. The Committee notes that Licensee 2 has not played an active role in the alleged conduct which led to the complaint, but she was named by the Complainant and is considered jointly with Licensee 1 as a co-listing agent of the Property.

The Report

3.4. The Complainant says he was not aware of the Report until he spoke with the Inspector who advised him of the Report and gave him a copy of it in late 2017.

3.5. The Inspector says he did not give a copy of the Report to Licensee 1 or the Agency but that it would be hard to believe Licensee 1 was not aware of what was in the Report. The Inspector assumes that because Licensee 1 was present at the Property when the Inspector inspected the Property in 2007, Licensee 1 would have been aware of the defects the Inspector identified at that time. The Inspector says Licensee 1 “supervised” his inspection but does not say Licensee 1 accompanied him as he carried out his inspection or if he pointed out the defects to Licensee 1.

3.6. The Inspector also assumes Licensee 1 may have seen, or obtained a copy of, the Report from the previous purchaser but, regardless, says that Licensee 1 would have discussed, and been aware of, the reasons why the previous purchaser did not proceed with the sale. The Inspector says those reasons would have been an alert for Licensee 1 and the Agency to investigate further.

3.7. The previous purchaser said their ASP was conditional on a builder’s report which was unsatisfactory and the agreement was cancelled but was not sure what information was passed onto Licensee 1 and the Agency, as this was handled by his solicitor. The previous purchaser did not supply a copy of their ASP, was reluctant to discuss the circumstances surrounding the transaction as he said it was a “nasty situation that caused a number of issues”, and he and his wife declined to have any further involvement with the investigation.

3.8. The firm of solicitors who acted for the vendor in the 2007 sale advised that the ASP for the previous purchaser was cancelled due to finance, there was no mention of a building report, and a standard letter was sent to the Agency that the agreement was at an end. The solicitors declined further communication.

3.9. There is a conflict between the evidence of the previous purchaser and that of their solicitor as to the reason for cancellation of the ASP. In the absence of further evidence, the Committee cannot be satisfied that the previous purchaser’s ASP was in fact conditional on a building report and must consider the possibility that the previous purchaser relied on a finance clause to cancel the ASP when a building report proved not to be satisfactory.

3.10. Licensees 1 and 2 say they have no recollection of the transaction. It is not unsurprising that they have no recollection of it so many years after the events. They talk about their policy and normal practice, now and at the time, and the Agency practice at the time. They also say they are positive they did not receive the report. This is inconsistent with them saying they have no

recollection of the transaction. The Committee does, however, accept what they say about their normal practice and that if they had received the Report/been aware of its contents they would have followed up with the Agency, and the vendor and would not have proceeded with marketing the Property.

3.11. The Committee is satisfied that Licensee 1 knew of Company Z’s inspection (and must have known a report would follow the inspection) as he attended the Property during the Inspector’s inspection in 2007. Although the Inspector says Licensee 1 would know the contents of the Report on the basis of that attendance, the Committee notes (as do Licensees 1 and 2), that it is not uncommon for a licensee allowing a building inspector access to a property on behalf of a prospective purchaser, to not be advised of any defects identified by that inspector, as the resultant report is considered confidential to the party who commissioned it. The Committee finds the fact of Licensee 1’s presence at the Property during the inspection by the Inspector does not prove that Licensee 1 knew of, or was advised of, the issues identified during that inspection.

3.12. The previous purchaser does not know what information was passed on to Licensee 1 or the

Agency and the Committee notes that the Eighth Edition 2006 ASP form used by the Agency in

2007 does not require a purchaser to advise the reasons or detail of a decision to cancel an ASP based on a building inspection condition. The solicitor for the vendor at that time says there was no mention of a building report.

3.13. The Complainant bears the burden of proving the relevant facts on the balance of probabilities.

The Committee finds it not proved that Licensees 1 and 2:

a) Knew the prior sale/purchase had failed due to the Report;

b) Had a copy of the Report;

c) Knew of the contents of the Report.

Failure to disclose

3.14. The Complainant is somewhat equivocal when he says that “to the best of his knowledge” he was not informed of the Report. The Complainant does say that he was aware of some issues with the Property, that the Property was potentially leaky when he purchased it and that it would require remedial action over time. He considers, however, that Licensee 1 was aware of significantly more issues than advised, and that Licensee 1 knew the previous sale was cancelled based on those issues.

3.15. Although Licensees 1 and 2 state they have no actual recollection of the transactions for the Property they point out the clause in the Further Terms section of the ASP which they say addresses weather-tightness issues and was inserted to alert the Complainant to issues that may be associated with monolithic cladding.

3.16. The photos in the advertising for the Property show no obvious signs that the dwelling was leaking and the photos in the Report, taken in July 2007, are included to show signs of leaking but those signs may not have been visible to the untrained eye.

3.17. The Complainant says that it was some 4-5 years into his ownership that he noticed mould and water damage at the Property. The Committee notes that a lack of awareness of the issues and a lack of maintenance of the Property over the 4-5 years from the time of purchase could have had a significant impact on the degree of damage from water entry at the Property by the time the Complainant became aware of it, and even more so by the time the cladding was removed in 2017.

3.18. In 2017 the Complainant made his complaint with a degree of hindsight due to the increased awareness and information available at that time relating to “leaky homes”, significant input

from the Inspector as to what he knew, and what he infers Licensees 1 and 2 knew, about the Property 10 years previously, and significantly more information about the water damage at the Property due to the cladding having been removed.

3.19. The Committee has found it not proved that Licensees 1 and 2 knew the previous sale failed due to the Report, or that they had a copy of, or knew the contents of, the Report. Without knowledge of the Report, the Committee finds it not proved that Licensees 1 and 2 knew of, or should reasonably have discovered, defects at the Property which they did not disclose to the Complainant.

The ASP

3.20. The Committee has concerns in respect of the weather-tightness clause in the ASP for the Property. Licensees 1 and 2 say the clause was not inserted as an “as is” clause and that the vendor warranties clauses at clause 6 were not deleted and remained to protect the Complainant purchaser.

3.21. The Committee finds that the clause in the ASP in respect of weather-tightness is an “as is” clause which refers to building defects in a general way and exposes the Complainant purchaser to significant risk of not being able to make any claim against the vendor for misrepresentation, assuming such occurred. The Committee has concerns that if Licensee 1 did not understand the “as is” clause that he used, then he could not possibly have adequately explained the clause and its consequences to the Complainant when he signed the ASP.

3.22. The Complainant notes that there may be concerns regarding the interpretation of the clause in the ASP relating to defects but that he is not debating this.

3.23. The Committee considers that, had the transaction for the Property been recent, it would have made an unsatisfactory conduct finding in respect of the weather-tightness clause in the ASP. However, it has decided to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 80(2) of the Act to take no further action for the following reasons:

a) The fact of the 10-year time lapse between conduct and complaint;

2. There is no evidence that the Complainant has suffered any adverse consequence from the clause;
   

c) The Complainant says he is not debating the clause.

3.24. The Committee recommends Licensee 1 reviews his knowledge and practice around use of “as

is” clauses and that he ensures he understands clauses he drafts or inserts in ASP, and that he properly explains such clauses to his clients/customers.

The Complaint to the Agency

3.25. The Complainant says he made a complaint to the Agency on 3 September 2017 and did not receive a response.

3.26. The Committee notes that a licensee or agency can only be guilty of unsatisfactory conduct in relation to “real estate agency work” which is defined as “...work or services provided, in trade, on behalf of another person for the purpose of bringing about a transaction....”

3.27. If the conduct undertaken is not defined as “real estate agency work”, for the purposes of the Act, a licensee is guilty of misconduct if the licensee’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by agents of good standing, or reasonable members of the public, as disgraceful.

3.28. The Committee finds that the Agency’s lack of response to the complaint does not fall within the definition of “real estate agency work”. The Committee considers the time lapse of 10 years since the alleged conduct and the fact that Licensee 1 and Licensee 2 no longer work for

the Agency, and finds the Agency’s lack of response to the Complainant (whilst poor business practice), does not come anywhere near reaching the level of conduct required to be considered as misconduct. The Committee takes no further action in this respect.

4. Your right to appeal

4.1. If you are affected by this decision of the Committee, you may appeal in writing to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) within 20 working days after the date of notice of this decision (Section 111).

4.2. 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 ) .

5. Publication

5.1. At the Committee’s discretion, the decision will be published without the names or identifying details of the Complainant (including the address of the Property), the Licensees, and any third parties.

5.2. The Authority will publish the Committee’s decision after the period for filing an appeal has ended, unless the Tribunal receives an application for an order preventing publication. The Authority will not publish the Committee’s decision until the Tribunal has made a decision on the application.

5.3. Publishing the Committee’s decision supports the purpose of the Act by ensuring that the disciplinary process remains transparent, independent, and effective. The Committee also considers that publishing this decision helps to set industry standards and that is in the public interest.

Signed

Jane Ross

Date: 11 June 2018

Appendix 1: Relevant provisions

The Real Estate Agents Act 2008 provides:

78 Functions of Committees

The functions of each Committee are—

(a) to inquire into and investigate complaints made under section 74:

(b) on its own initiative, to inquire into and investigate allegations about any licensee:

(c) to promote, in appropriate cases, the resolution of complaints by negotiation, conciliation, or mediation:

(d) to make final determinations in relation to complaints, inquiries, or investigations:

(e) to lay, and prosecute, charges before the Disciplinary Tribunal: (f) in appropriate cases, to refer the complaint to another agency:

(g) to inform the complainant and the person complained about of its decision, reasons for

the decision, and appeal rights: (h) to publish its decisions.

80 Decision to take no action on complaint

(1) A Committee may, in its discretion, decide to take no action or, as the case may require, no further action on any complaint if, in the opinion of the Committee,—

(a) the length of time that has elapsed between the date when the subject matter of the complaint arose and the date when the complaint was made is such that an investigation of the complaint is no longer practicable or desirable; or

(b) the subject matter of the complaint is inconsequential.

(2) Despite anything in subsection (1), the Committee may, in its discretion, decide not to take any further action on a complaint if, in the course of the investigation of the complaint, it appears to the Committee that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, any further action is unnecessary or inappropriate.

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.

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:

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

Rule 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.

Rule 10.7 A licensee is not required to discover hidden or underlying defects in land but must disclose known defects to a customer. Where it would appear likely to a reasonably competent licensee that land may be subject to hidden or underlying defects, a licensee must either—

(a) obtain confirmation from the client, supported by evidence or expert advice, that the land in question is not subject to defect; or

(b) ensure that a customer is informed of any significant potential risk so that the customer can seek expert advice if the customer so chooses.

The relevant provisions from the Fair Trading Act 1986 are:

9 Misleading and deceptive conduct generally

No person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

14 False representations and other misleading conduct in relation to land

(1) No person shall, in trade, in connection with the sale or grant or possible sale or grant of an interest in land or with the promotion by any means of the sale or grant of an interest in land,—

(a) make a false or misleading representation that a person has any sponsorship, approval, endorsement, or affiliation; or

(b) make a false or misleading representation concerning the nature of the interest in the land, the price payable for the land, the location of the land, the characteristics of the land, the use to which the land is capable of being put or may lawfully be put, or the existence or availability of facilities associated with the land.

(2) No person shall use physical force, harassment, or coercion in connection with the sale or grant or possible sale or grant of an interest in land, or the payment for an interest in land.

(3) In this section interest, in relation to land, means a legal or equitable estate or interest in the land; and includes—

(a) a right of occupancy of the land, or of a building or part of a building erected on the land, arising by virtue of the holding of shares, or by virtue of a contract to purchase shares, in a company that owns the land or building; or

(b) a right, power, or privilege, over, or in connection with, the land.