Rule change allows people to get up to $100,000 compensation from real estate agents guilty of unsatisfactory conduct

Rule change allows people to get up to $100,000 compensation from real estate agents guilty of unsatisfactory conduct

The threshold has been lowered for people seeking compensation for poor service provided by a real estate agent.

People will now be able to seek compensation of up to $100,000 for losses arising from the actions of a real estate agent, if the agent is found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct, according to the the Real Estate Authority (REA).

Previously, compensation could only be awarded (also to a maximum of $100,000) if an agent was found guilty of the more serious charge of misconduct.

According to the REA, the lesser charge of unsatisfactory conduct could include behaviour such as a licensee not disclosing problems with a property or misleading advertising that causes a consumer to suffer loss.

"The introduction of compensation for unsatisfactory conduct will improve the ability of consumers to seek redress for losses suffered," REA Chief Executive Kevin Lampen-Smith said.

However people will only be able to apply for compensation for behaviour that occurred after October 29 this year.

According to Lampen-Smith there were 296 complaints against agents in the last year and 102 were found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct.

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

5 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

While liking the idea, unless it includes the agency, or has a way of bypassing trust and company law sheltering surely this is a waste of time. Otherwise...Oh so sorry, my trading company just went into liquidation....

surely a civil case could be taken directly against the agent?

That's an incredibly easy veil to pierce.

Armitage vs Church. Operated through a company owned by a family trust yet Justice Dobson, J atributed personal liability "I am satisfied that it is appropriate to attribute personal liability to MrsChurch in the present case. She was the principal point of contact, and it was the essence of a personal relationship between adviser and client..."

"People will now be able to seek compensation of up to $100,000 for losses arising from the actions of a real estate agent, if the agent is found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct, according to the the Real Estate Authority (REA)." = GO FOR IT!!!!!!! Time for people to realize the damage they do!
We still have REA's even on this site that they are willing to help money launders etc so they can make a deal.