The Real Estate Agents Authority was set up to “promote and protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate and to promote public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work.”

In other words to protect the public from unethical and unscrupulous behaviour of bad real estate agents.  It was and is to carry out its brief fairly and in accordance with the law.  We are in wholehearted agreement.

What has actually happened is that while some agents have been quite properly brought to task for bad behaviour which has resulted in tangible loss for blameless people, many good and decent agents have had their reputations sullied for quite innocent and harmless actions deemed by the REAA Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC) to be unsatisfactory conduct or a Vendor / prospective buyer to be below their expectations.

We are here to cast a critical eye over these damaging determinations and misplaced customer belief to restore some balance to the process with fair and robust comment.

Situation 1
A supervising real estate agent counselled a salesperson that a 10 day settlement period after satisfaction of a subject to sale clause was not unusual. The supervising agent expressly advised the salesperson to make sure this timeframe was satisfactory with the purchaser and her solicitor. The supervising Agent was found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct by the CAC, censured and ordered to pay $500.00 to compensate the purchaser. When that real estate agent spent thousands of dollars on a Tribunal hearing, the CAC decision was smartly overturned. The Agent is not compensated or awarded costs. The Agents name is not suppressed. That is considered justice by the system.

Situation 2
When a real estate agent receives instructions from a home seller to buy additional advertising from a pricelist the agent is found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct by the CAC for charging for that advert because the Seller later denied authorising it. That real estate agent had no other option but to spend thousands of dollars on a Tribunal hearing consisting of a Judge, two senior panel members and his own solicitor. The complainants solicitor and her representation is paid for by the collective agents licensing fee. The REAA flew their legal representative from Auckland to Wellington to defend the sum of $133 in question. The complainant decided not to attend the Tribunal. Regardless the hearing still went ahead at huge cost. The Agent promptly wins his appeal. The Agent cannot be awarded costs or compensation. The agents name is not suppressed. That is considered justice by the system.

Situation 3
When an Agent is cleared of any wrongdoing by the CAC the complainant elects to take the matter to the Tribunal for review at no cost to themselves. That Agent has to spend thousands of dollars to defend their already faultless assessment, and is found faultless again by the Tribunal. The Agent cannot be awarded any costs or compensation. The agents name is not suppressed. That is considered justice by the system.

Are these examples rare?
If examples like these were rare they could be pardonable. But when they happen in volume over 5 years, well that’s a matter for investigation, identification, publication and redress.

Most people accept human errors and oversights from our enforcement agencies but no one is expected to accept a high number of guilty assessments that are summarily overturned by a Tribunal. Nor does anyone expect to have to pay between $5,000 and $20,000 for re-examining already established “no case to answer” CAC decisions without costs not being able to be awarded.

Many agents choose not to pursue an unjustified assessment decision because of the effort, cost and time factor. These findings of unsatisfactory or misconduct rulings by assessment can destroy livelihoods, reputations and life long careers.

CAC or REAA staff who make assessments that are quashed or overturned by the Tribunal will now be reported here.

Subject to a name suppression order, anyone who elects to take a “no case to answer” assessment to the Tribunal for re-examination and the Agent is found not to be at fault, their name is published here.

• If we in our absolute discretion deem that it is in the best interest of the industry will take and fund legal action against the REAA in any court.
• Representation and advocacy on a collective basis to mitigate the more extreme practices of the REAA.
• Practical advice on strategies and ways to meet a complaint.
• Provide online private forum so agents can anonymously share their experiences, concerns and ideas.
• Where legally possible publish an online list of specific REAA and CAC employees who make decisions that are overturned by the Real Estate Agents Tribunal or any other Court.
• Subject to a name suppression order, anyone who elects to take a “no case to answer” assessment to the Tribunal for re-examination and the Agent is found not to be at fault, their name is published here.
• Opportunity to take individual cost effective risk insurance direct from the providers based upon your own individual risk direct. (Currently under negotiation and will be available soon).
• Assistance with forming a defence which will reduce your legal expenses and increase the chance of a favourable outcome.
• Provide helpful information and procedures on how to limit complaints.

• We will not endorse or aid real estate agents who act outside the law.
• We are not an insurance company.