Today Tonight Story Regarding Ben Gough

[Muffinman]

Rycki and Kylie Batchelor, a couple from Mackay, decided to place their investment property in Bundaberg for sale by auction with Harcourts Bundaberg. The property failed to sell at auction and agent Ben Gough ended up purchasing the property from the couple. But what Rycki and Kylie Batchelor didnt know was that, on the same day they got $252,000 for selling their home to Ben Gough, the home was on-sold to another buyer for $297,000.

Watch "Today Tonight Story Regarding Ben Gough" on Realty Tube Australia - Real Estate Videos

 

[Y33]

Definitely doesn't come across as very fair does he.

 

[ianvestor]

No-one was forced to sign anything.

If you *sign* a contract with an agreed price and then complain *afterward* about that price, then you're just dumb.

 

[bdc]

No-one was forced to sign anything.

If you *sign* a contract with an agreed price and then complain *afterward* about that price, then you're just dumb.

Except assuming those numbers and what the buyer in that story said was fact then it seems to me a pretty clear case of malpractice?

The buyer offered $280k originally and had obviously been in negotiations with the REA before the contract had been signed, so the eventual buyers offers were being withheld from the vendors.

I don't know how on earth that guy could be cleared, ridiculous.

Unless of course what the buyer said wasn't true, which with TT I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[BayView]

More unfortunate bad publicity for agents.

It's so unfair, isn't it?

 

[Petal]

The short man who wanted a cheque from the RE Agent

 

[willair]

20 years ago this used to happen all the time in R-E in QLD,deception is deception,people like those that this agent targeted will start comingout of the wood work now,that's the problem with Agents like this oneand several that work in my Area is,their ego overtakes them...

Keep up the good work Neil,..willair..

 

[BV]

The market needs regulation
Once you start taking their licence off them and toping it up with a nice fine nobody would be brave to do dodgy dealings again.

 

[pully]

More unfortunate bad publicity for agents.

It's so unfair, isn't it?

i think publicity is good for consumers to increase their awareness and put them on guard to these practises.
of course buying cheaply and selling for more is as old as time but most who engage an agent would expect a better outcome than this?

how were the 2 transactions discovered?
often because of potential legal issues people are reluctant to name and shame so a lot of dodgy practices go unreported. also despite more regulations we do not hear of many prosecutions?

i have often thought it would be good to have a website like trip advisor where consumers can rate and tell their experiences of in real estate, actually use photos of what happened as is done to describe hotels/airlines etc. to be able to state the name of the agency and how their business was handled to warn others to avoid or engage?
but i doubt we could do this because of legal issues so the rogues continue to be protected by silence.

there must be some who are ethical surely but it certainly helps the buy and hold strategy. we do not want to be cheated when we sell, so we hold on!!
regards.

 

[ianvestor]

The market needs regulation
Once you start taking their licence off them and toping it up with a nice fine nobody would be brave to do dodgy dealings again.

What would the fine be for in this case? Buying low and selling high?

i have often thought it would be good to have a website like trip advisor where consumers can rate and tell their experiences of in real estate, actually use photos of what happened as is done to describe hotels/airlines etc. to be able to state the name of the agency and how their business was handled to warn others to avoid or engage?
but i doubt we could do this because of legal issues so the rogues continue to be protected by silence.

I think all paid services will eventually go this way, which would be good for everyone except dodgy people... like servicecentral.com.au.

 

[Dazz]

Watched the entire video piece of 5:04, and am now perplexed.

He was accused of two things in the video ;

1) Practices used in a real estate transaction. The State's Office of Fair Trading has fully investigated the accusation and found no wrong doing.

2) Grievous bodily harm. The court found him not guilty.


What exactly is the story about then ?? ....and what does it mean when 6 or 7 separate people have a quick 2 second headshot whilst saying "it's just wrong" ??


I am perplexed.

 

[evand]

So are you saying Ben Gough isn't at fault and the vendors are?

No-one was forced to sign anything.

If you *sign* a contract with an agreed price and then complain *afterward* about that price, then you're just dumb.

 

[ianvestor]

I was saying a legal contract was signed by two willing parties. No wrong-doing other than whinging about said contract after it was carried out.

 

[Xenia]

what if the offender did not have an agent's license and the property was bought at one price then sold/flipped for a higher price on that same day?

people enquire about flipping properties on this forum all the time.... and it's actually illegal without a license.....

Private investors run the risk of heavy fines if dealing in property transactions without a license, yet they still do it....

people walk around with cards saying "Im a property investor" and low ball properties all the time. would anyone here accept a property that is under market value?

I don't think it is right or ethical for an agent to buy their own listing, infact it's downright wrong.

However, investors with licences are restricted and heavily regulated.

Just to add to the debate, would it have been wrong for the agent to buy a listing if he lost money on the deal? what if he kept the property and did not sell it?

Publicity, whether positive or negative may have a positive effect for the agent in the long run, I now know who he is and did not before today!.

The media are making bucketloads in selling controversy, look at how much interest this thread is attracting with everyone having a view point and the media and the agent are getting the publicity.

who is this causing the most damage to in the long run?

 

[ianvestor]

who is this causing the most damage to in the long run?

Probably 'victim' types who feed off the stories of other victims to justify their own lack of self-responsibility.

 

[Xenia]

hmmm funny you should say that Ian

losing money is one thing but losing the lesson is a much greater loss.

 

[cu@thetop]

No-one was forced to sign anything.

If you *sign* a contract with an agreed price and then complain *afterward* about that price, then you're just dumb.

Completely disagree when the price it sold for has been based on advice by an agent in a fiduciary position and the agent directly (in this case) or indirectly (sells to developer mates who give agent commission on the re-sell) gets a profit from the transaction.

In the face of misrepresentation ("it is only worth $x and no one is interested couase the agent has kept the listing in his pocket") let us not blame the victim.

If it was in Brisbane I'd probably run the civil suit on a "no win no fee" basis just to annihilate a grubby agent.

 

[BV]

What would the fine be for in this case? Buying low and selling high?.

Client manipulation and conflict of interest?
$500K fine and loss of licence would be appropriate IMO

 

[cu@thetop]

And further did he put the original $280 k offer to the sellers?????? Apparently not.

Not worried about the GBH count or Mr Kickboxer- this is irrelevant to the misleading and decptive conduct.

 

[BayView]

I don't think it is right or ethical for an agent to buy their own listing, infact it's downright wrong.

In Victoria, an agent can buy his own listing provided he informs the Vendor in writing that he is buying it.

This also applies to any other of his associated parties (relatives and other work colleagues) - the agent must inform the Vendor.

As for right or wrong in this case we are discussing, I don't know....

From a vendor's viewpoint, if there is not a lot of interest in the property, and the agent puts up their hand and makes an offer the Vendor is happy with and accepts, then I can't see anything wrong with that. The Vendor can say no at any time.

From the agent's viewpoint, to see an opportunity to buy a property cheaply creates a conflict of professional interest - I would like to buy every property I buy well under market and sell it the same day for a nice profit, and as an investor, so would the agent.

But, he has a professional duty to try and achieve the best possible sale price for his Vendor, so in this case, he is negligent if he buys it cheap and sells it the same day for much more.

He could argue that he didn't know the buyer he sold it to before he bought it from his Vendor, but I'd seriously doubt that this was the case. It's way too convenient that he could buy it and miraculously have a buyer appear the same day.

If I was a judge and it came before me in a court, I would need to know that he knew his buyer beforehand, and also that he had informed his Vendor that he was buying the property.

If this could be proved, then I would rule that he was negligent, because he is contracted to the Vendor to act in his best interests and on his behalf.

10 years in the slammer and no time off.

First offense.