A Queenstown real estate agent and his firm have been pinged for unsatisfactory conduct over a property deal.
A committee of the Real Estate Agents Authority (REAA) ruled against both Ged Hay and his agency, Hoamz, after a complaint.
Hay’s been fined $3000 and ordered to undergo further training to address his breaches.
Hoamz was fined the same amount.
Last week, Mountain Scene revealed the REAA recently also found against three BayleysLocations agents.
Hoamz managing partner Fred Bramwell says “we were surprised that [REAA] came to this decison”.
They’d not lodged an appeal, however, and “we have made our system better so we don’t have any repeat performances”.
The case concerns the $1,300,500 sale, in 2015, of a property owned by a trust, whose trustees were the complainant and his two sisters.
The complainant had a long list of grievances against both Hay and Hoamz.
The REAA committee – which doesn’t disclose the trustees’ names or the address of the property – makes four findings of unsatisfactory conduct against Hay.
According to its decision, he offered the property for sale and introduced prospective buyers before an agency agreement had been signed.
He failed to communicate directly or in a timely manner with all trustees – and specifically the complainant, who was overseas, but contactable.
Hay also failed to verify that the complainant consented to the agreement being signed on his behalf.
Lastly, he failed to note on the agency agreement that the vendor was a trust.
The committee also found Hoamz failed to ensure Hay was properly managed or supervised, and that his work prior to the agency agreement being signed complied with the Real Estate Agents Act.
Its office systems also failed to stop the agreement being processed, despite inconsistencies with the way it was dated.
The committee did, however, throw out several other allegations put by the complainant.
Not all the trustee vendors agreed on making a complaint. The complainant’s sister, Linda Telfer, tells Mountain Scene “the decision is very disappointing as we do not agree with or support the complaint”.
“No harm or disadvantage was done to any party in the transaction.”
She calls Hoamz’s awards in the recent Australasian Real Estate Results Awards “a justified recognition of the calibre of their work”.
“We could not have been more satisfied with our experience with Hoamz and would unreservedly recommend Hoamz to others and use their services again.”
In its decision on penalties, the committee reveals Hay’s lawyer asked it “not to consider publication given [Hay’s] previous unblemished record”.
The committee “interprets this to be a request to suppress” his name.
Rejecting the request, it “notes that publication is an important part of the transparency of the complaints assessment committee process and considers it is in the public interest to do so in this case”.