Buyers welcome real estate changes

Email
Print

Sun, 24 Jun 2012 6:04p.m.

3 News Video On Demand
Rate:
1 ratings
The Real Estate Institute says it already has a strict code of conduct to keep it honest and doesn’t need changes to the law.

The Real Estate Institute says it already has a strict code of conduct to keep it honest and doesn’t need changes to the law.

Read the full story »

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

1/07/2012 9:14:47 p.m.

Dave wrote:

I have to laugh, I would be far more concerned about purchasing a property from a private seller. The REAA has real teeth so most agents are very well prepared, a lot of agents here in Nelson have council file information, title, rental assessments etc at the open homes.

26/06/2012 3:08:56 p.m.

robbie wrote:

Tom - so the agent has to do their homework. Cool so now agents have to be industry skilled to a level that includes: registered builder; registered plumber; registered surveyor; registered electrician; qualified financial consultant; legal aide; and the list can get much much longer. On top of this when we do our research and that research produces a false result (eg. it is not uncommon for local authority property records to contain some errors at least 10% of the time)it again ius our fault. Hey I've got an idea - lets scrap the way that we transact real estate here in New Zealand and adopt the policies used in the UK. Now that really would give us some horror stories.

26/06/2012 11:08:40 a.m.

Tom wrote:

I have no confidence in the REAA or real estate agents.

The fact that any entity/person would be negative on being required to tell the truth when selling a product or service is evidence of how removed from credibility that entity/person is when using such terms as honesty, integrity, and professionalism.

The fact that some of the previous commentators discriminate between seller and agent is remarkable. The agent represents the seller in the transaction, and is paid a commission for that purpose; the buyer often never sees/meets the seller. So, how an agent may seek to avoid responsibility for a seller's falsehoods as to the property is untenable. If an agent accepts the agency, for payment or otherwise, it is the agent who has to do the homework and tell the truth.

Several commentators appear to put forward the rationale that under "marketing", we should accept dishonesty. I would ask why, and keep asking why until their lack of logic, lack of integrity, and lack of leadership qualities for our children are all exposed.