Agents and Ethics

I would like to run this story by the forum.
About 15 months ago when the property market was running hot my wife and I were making many inspections, annoying various agents (many at that time were flat out giving you the time of day... let alone returning a phone call), frightened we would miss the boat and never get an investment property . While at work I saw a sign being hammered in the front of an old 70's six pack in what I considered a good area. Quick call to the wife seen her inspecting the unit within minutes of the sign going in. It was decided that we thought it would be suitable for a family member. The family member then proceeded to deal with the agency, negotiated and eventually purchased the property. A month or so later another unit within the block was for sale with the same agency. After an inspection with the principle of the office I said I would make an offer close to $17000 more than what the family member had paid for their unit. The Agent then proceeded to tell me that he thought we had stolen the first unit and as my verbal offer was $5000 below the level of offers his client had instructed him to bring ,he had no intentions of communicating my offer either verbally or on paper to the seller. I reminded him that he had an obligation as a licensed real estate agent in Qld to submit all offers to his client. His response again was he was breaking no rules as my offer was below the level that his client had set. I repeated my offer and would involve the REIQ if my offer wasn't forwarded.I expected he would at least let the owner be aware of my offer. Some time later the unit was sold and after talking to the new owner I mistakenly understood they had paid $27,000 more that the family member had. I let it out of my thoughts as we continue to look for other properties.
Last week the family member decided to get a valuation as they decided to rent it out and a valuation should eliminate any future capital gains tax arguments should the unit be sold in the future. In the process of the valuation comparable units sold in the area showed that the 2nd unit changed hands for exactly what my offer was. This refreshed my memory of all the above and I would like to know what the learned members of the forum would have done in similar circumstances.
And yes this agency belongs to that chain that has a self appointed mortgage on ethics in the Real Estate industry. :rolleyes:
Hound Dog :)
 
Hopefully the slowdown from the last boom weeds out the shonks.

The REA's own bodies in various states need to do more work...because until then ethics and REA's in the same sentence will never be taken seriously by the public.

Until then I feel sorry for the good agents that will get tarnished with the same brush. On a local level the good agents tend to get identified but not by everyone sadly.
 
Well Hound Dog,

You should report the agent to Jenman direct.

If he wants to hold the ethical high ground he's got to ensure that his agents abide by Australian laws.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Hound Dog,

You should have went to the vendor and verified their acceptance price before shooting the agent. Maybe he was telling the truth.

Comparable selling prices arent the be all of correct prices, especially with a unit and a sample of one. There could have been an abnormailty,eg:a buyer wanting to live next door to a relative or friend and paying a premium for that.
 
Last edited:
but....

likewow said:
Hound Dog,

You should have went to the vendor and verified their acceptance price before shooting the agent. Maybe he was telling the truth.

Comparable selling prices arent the be all of correct prices, especially with a unit and a sample of one. There could have been an abnormailty,eg:a buyer wanting to live next door to a relative or friend and paying a premium for that.


Ah yes, but the issue is that the regs now say that ALL OFFERS must be submitted to the vendor, so, in this case the RE has not complied......

There were probably a few issues alongside this we dont know about, and, sometimes its a personality clash kind of thing......

another question we could ask, would be....... "did you ask the agent that if the price requirement change, please call me, as my offer still stands..... " ??? We usually do that, leaving a contact number..... If you were hot to trot on the property, then, perhaps pestering the agent, or, even asking to talk to vendor directly....... ???

I'm in no way surprised that it's a Jenman agent involved....... I have my opinions on that mob, but will leave them out of here.......


Some of it is, approach & personalities.....

More of it is agent ethics...... No surprises there......


Chalk up another one to the great Jenman system ??? :mad:
 
I wasnt arguing the fact that the RE didnt take offers to the vendor, thats a given. What i was saying is the reason could have been he was under instructions from the vendor not to take offers below a certain price?

My point was the truth of that was never verified by Hound Dog.

Before you start slamming Jenman, read the posts please. For someone who is not going to post your opinion, you done a pretty good job. :rolleyes:

And i dont think you can say that the regs are that ALL offers by law are to be taken to the vendor. What if there are instructions the vendor gives the agent to not submit offers, like price or conditions of contract....etc.. I have done that myself and in that case the RE agent wasnt acting against the regs.
 
But if the agent wasn't supposed to take offers of that level to the vendor, how did it sell at that level then? Surely if somebody else had offered that price, it shouldn't have gone to the vendor either...
Somebody is telling some porkies here....
 
Lissy said:
But if the agent wasn't supposed to take offers of that level to the vendor, how did it sell at that level then? Surely if somebody else had offered that price, it shouldn't have gone to the vendor either...
Somebody is telling some porkies here....


And that was one of my points... thanks Lissy.....

What I WAS trying to say is that we may not have ALL the information here.... but also, that the agent may also not have been very good either......

Don't get me started on the Jenman system...... trust me, that wasn't slamming....... :rolleyes:
 
Freeatlast said:
And that was one of my points... thanks Lissy.....

What I WAS trying to say is that we may not have ALL the information here.... but also, that the agent may also not have been very good either......

Don't get me started on the Jenman system...... trust me, that wasn't slamming....... :rolleyes:

Funny how you didnt say that till Lissy brought it up. If you meant that, why didnt you say it instead of using the majority of your post criticising a certain 'ethics based' RE system.


"Some time later the unit was sold and after talking to the new owner I mistakenly understood they had paid $27,000 more that the family member had. "


The above statement from the original post suggests that the property sold well above the vendors acceptance price but its a bit ambiguous so who knows. Maybe Lissys post was incorrect.

My point was that the RE agent shouldnt be criticised in the first instance without knowing the facts.
 
Last edited:
Likewow
To quote the original post from Hound Dog:
"Last week the family member decided to get a valuation as they decided to rent it out and a valuation should eliminate any future capital gains tax arguments should the unit be sold in the future. In the process of the valuation comparable units sold in the area showed that the 2nd unit changed hands for exactly what my offer was."
That's the statement I based my comments on. Hound Dog says he MISTAKENLY understood the new owner had paid $27,000 more - in other words, they actually hadn't.
 
Fair enough but it is ambiguous and not real clear and thats why i originally suggested that Houndgog should have verified things with the vendor first.

I actually cant believe i'm defending a real estate agent but i always think you need the facts before questioning or criticising anyone.
 
Back
Top