Search results for 'auction'

Really rude realtors

Amy — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:13:46 GMT

Hi,

I just want to vent actually. I want to vent about a really rude realtor. Let's say his name is Mince Meat (which is what I'd like to turn him into). I had the audacity recently to question his price guide on a property in Surrey Hills. The property is on a large block - nearly 900sqm - and he quoted $825K to $925K. I felt it was undervalued, which is not such a mental leap in the light of the underquoting that goes on in that part of the woods. So I wrote him an email, on realestate.com, telling him that it was way underquoted based on comparable sales. I did also write that I would be talking to Consumer Affairs Victoria about it.

Now, perhaps I was a bit hasty, as the auction had not yet occurred, so I couldn't be sure that it was undervalued. And perhaps I should have spoken to him first about why he felt it was worth so little. Nevertheless, you might think that he would ring me to explain exactly why he chose the range he did. But this is what he did - he rang me at dinner time that evening, and essentially verbally abused me. He was really loud and aggressive, telling me that I was "talking crap". I had to hang up on him.

Moments later I get this threatening email from him, saying that he'll make a civil complaint against me and that he'll make sure that none of his real estate agent's 24 offices will deal with me. Then I receive another threatening email this morning, telling me that "If you continue with your colourful vernacular against my office, and your communication as thus far presented and recorded; I advise that you will shortly be required to seek legal representation as I will not accept this against my office or our group. And at that point, the matter will become a costly exercise financially on your behalf if litigation is sought...." And it went on. Don't forget, this is after a one line statement emailed to him from realestate.com. Even though I made a complaint to his company about his behaviour, his superior came back to me and said that his behaviour was justified.

I really think that his behaviour was way over the top, unjustified and unprofessional, even if I was quick to bring up CAV.

What do other people think?

REIV Provides Misleading Auction Advice

Peter Mericka — Sun, 09 May 2010 02:17:00 GMT

OPINION
by Peter Mericka B.A., LL.B
Real Estate Lawyer
Qualified Practising Conveyancer Victoria
Director Lawyers Real Estate Pty Ltd

In his regular propaganda column in the Domain section of The Age newspaper, the CEO of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV), Enzo Raimondo, pretends to inform consumers about the auction myth. Asking the question, "Is it sold after the hammer falls?" Raimondo casts the question as one relating only to the right of the vendor to sell or not to sell after the fall of the hammer. He is very careful not to alert purchasers to the fact that they too can expose the auction as a nonsense by refusing to sign the contract after the hammer falls.

Real estate is NEVER sold at auction

The first point to be made about real estate auctions is that they are not true auctions. When the auctioneer yells "Sold", and hits his hand with the rolled up unsigned contract, he is telling a lie. There is no enforceable sale at that point, and either party can simply turn on their heel and walk away.

Sure, there is silly legislation that says that a real estate agent cannot accept further bids after the auction, but this does stop a vendor from ignoring the auction result and selling to someone else who offers a higher price.

Raimondo is careful to ignore the fact that some vendors will not be pushed into a sale on terms that are not acceptable to them. He observes,

"The vendor may have decided they don't want to move after all, or they would like a longer settlement than that offered in the contract, or they are unable to agree on terms with the highest bidder." (Enzo Raimondo, Domain, the Age, Saturday 8 May, 2010 p.3)

Sure, these are reasons why a vendor may not want to sign the contract after the auction is over. But there is a much better reason why the vendor may not want to sign. It is possible that after the auction another purchaser has offered the vendor more for the property.

When a new bidder offers more

What is a vendor to do when the auctioneer has hit his hand with the unsigned contract, and shouted "Sold" at the highest bidder, only to hear someone else call out, "Wait a minute, I'll pay another $10,000."

As Raimondo points out,

"The laws in Victoria sensibly prevent an auctioneer taking any bids once the property has been knocked down to the highest bidder but they do not compel a vendor to sell."

In other words, the law is a nonsense, and its only real function is to encourage real estate agents to deceive their own clients.

Estate agents encouraged to deceive vendors

The real estate agent is not allowed to take any more bids, but the vendor can. This silly law simply encourages real estate agents to mislead their vendor client into believing that no further bids or offers can be entertained. For this law to work, the real estate agent must ensure that the vendor remains unaware that further bids and offers can be dealt with.

In most cases the real estate agent will attempt to ensure that the property is sold for the lower auction price to the successful bidder, and may even falsely advise the vendor to ignore the late-comer. This will save the integrity of the auction, and will save the real estate agent from embarrassment, but it is not in the vendor's best interests.

The vendor is entitled to trash the auction, ignore the highest bidder, and to sell the property to the late-comer with the deeper pockets.

Purchasers can also refuse to buy

Raimondo's article was very careful to avoid letting on that purchasers are just as entitled as vendors to refuse to sign a contract after the auction has finished.

A purchaser who has second thoughts about buying can, at any time prior to signing the contract, simply walk away. Consider this scenario:

The successful bidder begins to walk to towards the auctioneer with a view to signing the contract. As he does so, someone from the crowd calls out, "You didn't mention the asbestos problem, you didn't tell these people that they can't fix it and that's why they're selling." The purchaser, having heard this, asks the auctioneer about it, and the auctioneer informs the purchaser that there was never any obligation on the part of the vendor to disclose the fact that the property is full of unstable asbestos. The purchaser refuses to sign the contract, gets into his car, and drives off.

What can the real estate agent do in such circumstances? Nothing. However, not all real estate agents will simply allow the purchaser to walk away. Consider following account of an estate agent who was not prepared to see his auction spoilt.

Tim Fletcher is one of Melbourne's best known real estate agents. He was regularly heard on Melbourne radio (until he was recently dumped), and he regularly preens himself on tabloid television as a real estate expert.

In an article in Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper, Tim Fletcher is quoted as follows,

"We had this case of a fellow making an opening bid and it was well above what anyone was thinking - about $100,000 over. He was buying for his pregnant daughter. I sold the place to him but he started yelling and carrying on saying, "I'm not paying. I'm not buying it."

I chased him and his daughter up the street and she almost had the baby. She was a week off and I was afraid it was going to arrive.

She was in tears. The man had realised he'd made a terrible mistake and should have gone along with the flow rather than trump everyone with a big bid.

I said to him, 'You bought the property' and I threatened to get the police.

In the end he came in and signed up but it took three quarters of an hour."

Disgusted by this account, I wrote to Tim Fletcher and asked him to answer a few questions. A letter from Maddocks Lawyers, on Fletcher's behalf, threatened a defamation action, stating, "The newspaper article upon which your statements are purportedly based was not itself correct." However, a follow up letter in which I sought elaboration on this was politely ignored. I am not aware of any legal action having been taken by Fletcher against the Herald Sun newspaper or the journalist who wrote the article in which Fletcher was quoted.

More about "REIV Provides Misleading Auction Advice"...

FREE Download - Contract of Sale of Real Estate

Click on this link:

Lawyers Conveyancing is proud to sponsor the REIC

Mornington Peninsula's unethical, lying, deceptive estate agent

Maria Bowman — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:53:38 GMT

Husband & I are new to investing & were seeking a property on Morn. Peninsula within 600m to the beach.We thought we'd found one, met the agent, attempted to make an offer but were told the vendor wanted an auction & fair enough too.This agent sent us the S32 & kept calling to state there had been little interest & no-one was talking the figures we had advised we were prepared to pay (approx $330K). He also advised the range was between $315-$340,000. The day before the auction, he called & stated "I want to congratulate you in anticipation of getting your first property. There has been no interest & I reckon its yours. See you tomorrow". We were excited but also, a bit sceptical. Auction day.. over 80 people at the pre-auction inspection, over 150 at the actual auction, there were 9 BIDDERS! Mr. Lying so-and-so addressed the crowd as follows .. "Thanks to all of you who called, I've sent you all your 32's & for all those of you who were concerned about how much deposit to bring, the vendor is flexible". Now, my issue.. He blatantly lied in order to get us to the auction (which worked), the house sold for $380!!!, there were 9 BIDDERS & HE BALD FACED LIED TO US. How is this fair? He lost our business as did his agency. We finally bought, dealt with a BRILLIANT agent, he got our rental business & I saw whats-his-name & told him he was a liar. His response? Well, thats the real estate game love... JERK

underquoting -caught out!

Cate — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:56:55 GMT

(Woodards) 1/5 Beverley St,Glen Huntly - Quoted $380-$420K - Auction 20/09. We expressed interest in theproperty and placed a prior offer of $452K. The offer wasn’t accepted.The next couple of days should have seen the price quote CHANGE to reflect thatthere had been prior interest from a buyer above the selling range quoted.However the quote wasn’t changed, and when we called to ask why, we wereinformed that the vendors reserve had already been set and it was in thatrange. The agent was aware I was going to be bidding at the auction.

On the day the bidding openedat $380K with a vendor bid. At $420K I asked if the property was on the market– the answer was of course NO. In fact it didn’t go on the market until thepoint where we had placed our prior offer (around the $450K mark) – surprisesurprise. The property sold for $490K with strong bidding from four parties.There were buyers there from Warrnambool - They had driven to Melbourne just to attend the auction (theydidn't even get one bid in - it went way over what they had been told toexpect). During our conversation with them after the auction, we asked if theyhad been informed about any prior offers on the property. (The buyers were wellknown to the agent who had been addressing them by name during the auction andobviously knew they were interested in purchasing the unit and clearly expectedthem to bid.) They had NOT been told of prior offers

It’s clearly unfair to the buyer – particularly the first homebuyer who would have invested time effort and emotion into this property - tokeep them in the dark about genuine offers that are above the quote rangeespecially as the reserve was clearly NOT set in the quote range. TheReal Estate Industry wonders why it has such a low standing in the community asa whole.

This is truly underquoting.This should be stamped out. Licensed, reputable agents should not stand up forthe ridiculous antics of the few. If the REIV cannot stop its members doingthis, then hopefully Consumer Affairs Victoria can. This goes way beyondgetting the best deal for your vendor. There were plenty of potentialpurchasers that were going to bring the price up to high $400’s which is whatit finally sold for. The comparable sales in the area showed the property wouldmost likely go into the high$400’s – which it did. The agent had a writtenlegally binding offer well in excess of their asking price that met everycondition identical to that which we were allowed to bid on (in other words itwas declined on price) more than a week out from the auction. If the agencycan’t sell real estate without doing irreparable damage to our industry, then Ithink it is time they find a vocation they are more suited too. Real EstateAgents are one of the least trusted professions according to a stack ofnewspaper polls and it is operators like this that add to that standing

Re: Mandatory Property Inspections

FirstHomeBuyerBurnt — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:46:49 GMT

Leon Cupit Independent Property Inspections:

Mandatory Property Inspections?
Today, a number of factors are forcing banks and financial servicesfirms to take a closer look at the property appraisal process beforeapproving a mortgage. These factors include a rising number offoreclosures, many applicants applying to extend mortgages to includeunforeseen repairs, and a rise in bankruptcies due to being overextended as a direct consequence of unforeseen repair costs.
Unfortunately, the standard lender’s appraisal often fails to revealthe true condition of a home or the applicant’s ability to pay forrequired repairs on the property. This is where a home inspectionconducted by a qualified independent property inspector - perhapscommissioned or required by the mortgage lender or the mortgage insurercould serve as a valuable adjunct to the appraisal.
While only a small number of buyers today commission a propertyinspection for their own protection, they are not obligated to sharethe results with the lender - even though the report may reveal seriousdefects with the property. Despite these facts, property inspectors are notroutinely hired by lenders, and are typically called in only when abank appraiser or a valuer raises a specific concern. In fact,Independent Property Inspections (IPI) has found that less than one outof a hundred inspections conducted by its independent inspectors aredone on behalf of a lender or as a requirement of the mortgageapplication. The inspector is only called in when the appraiser notesan obvious structural problem, such as springy uneven floors or aleaking roof. There are many other serious problems that are not asobvious and that would normally go unnoticed during an appraisal by anuntrained eye. Some examples are failed framing systems, unsafedefective electrical wiring, blocked underground drainage systems, oldroofing not yet leaking but in very poor condition, and subtle cracksin walls that may be symptomatic of more serious foundation failure.
Another concern is that the inspector who is called in at anappraiser’s request is usually asked to perform only a partialinspection, in order to investigate one or two items, raising thepossibility that other serious problems may still be overlooked. Eventhough such limited inspections may seem simpler and even adequate atthe time, it represents short-sighted thinking. Ultimately, it is ineveryone’s best interest to inspect the property thoroughly and makesure the buyer doesn’t take on more home repair bills than he or shebargained for.
Horror Story – Julie, a single mum with two kids, a9 year old Oliver and his 6 year old brother Ben, Julie has a full timeexecutive job and works 50 hours a week, some from home. Juliedownsized last year when she lost he husband to illness. Julie neededto be closer to work and the school and she could not manage themortgage on her single wage.
Julie found the perfect home, it was ten minutes walk to school and afurther fifteen to her office, it had the three bedrooms, the en suiteshe so desperately wanted, secure backyard, it even had a lockup garage.
On auction day Julie was beside herself with nerves, so she got herbrother to do the bidding for her, she was pre approved for $380K.Julie’s brother won the final bid with $384,500. The extra $4,500 justmaxed out the credit card.
The day Julie and the kids moved in was the day their world fell apart.The house sure looked different without the furniture, floor coveringsand all those wonderful paintings on the walls. She immediately foundtermite damage in the floor boards where the king size bed was, shefound the bathroom floor was rotten around the shower from years ofleaking, the ceiling inside the bedroom 2 robe had collapsed under theweight of the water soaked insulation, and the timber stumps underbedroom 3 and the hallway were also rotted out from the water pondingunder the house.
The total repair bill was in excess of $17,000 and the lenderrefused to advance Julie any more. She had reached her limit. The banksvaluer didn’t raise any concerns by saying he is not qualified tocomment on property defects, the lender said Julie had demonstrated herability to pay the mortgage and ticked all the other boxes, so all thenumbers stacked up.
The word got out about the house and Julie couldn’t resell it. Julieended up declaring bankruptcy and she lost the house, She is now livingback with her retired parents and catching an hour and a half hourtrain ride to and from work six days a week, Oliver and Ben were forcedto change schools and friends.
The bank was forced to sell the house for $290,000 12 months after Julie left. Taking a loss of $90,000.
It seems incredible that a simple $350 property inspection could have avoided all this.
Wake Up Australia; Now that’s a case for “Mandatory Property Inspections” To continue without them is simply “Un Australian”.

l feel very sorry for Julie, what aweful circumstances.... but if she had a property/pest inspection by A....centre then she may well have been in the same trouble. We had A...centre do a property/pest inspection on a house we wished to purchase. They found no termite damage or any trace of previous termite damage. So we were so excited about the professional advise given by A...centre that proceeded the purchase or our first home.. 4 months later we have extensive damage from termites.

A...centre claim their lnspection was correct at the time. We feel that the scale of the damage is to extreme for termites to have eaten so much in such a short period of time in Victoria. Has anyone else had similar dealings with A...centre or other so called pest inspectors?

Mandatory Property Inspections

Leon Cupit Independent Property Inspections — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:08:51 GMT

Mandatory Property Inspections?
Today, a number of factors are forcing banks and financial services firms to take a closer look at the property appraisal process before approving a mortgage. These factors include a rising number of foreclosures, many applicants applying to extend mortgages to include unforeseen repairs, and a rise in bankruptcies due to being over extended as a direct consequence of unforeseen repair costs.

Unfortunately, the standard lender’s appraisal often fails to reveal the true condition of a home or the applicant’s ability to pay for required repairs on the property. This is where a home inspection conducted by a qualified independent property inspector - perhaps commissioned or required by the mortgage lender or the mortgage insurer could serve as a valuable adjunct to the appraisal.

While only a small number of buyers today commission a property inspection for their own protection, they are not obligated to share the results with the lender - even though the report may reveal serious defects with the property. Despite these facts, property inspectors are not routinely hired by lenders, and are typically called in only when a bank appraiser or a valuer raises a specific concern. In fact, Independent Property Inspections (IPI) has found that less than one out of a hundred inspections conducted by its independent inspectors are done on behalf of a lender or as a requirement of the mortgage application. The inspector is only called in when the appraiser notes an obvious structural problem, such as springy uneven floors or a leaking roof. There are many other serious problems that are not as obvious and that would normally go unnoticed during an appraisal by an untrained eye. Some examples are failed framing systems, unsafe defective electrical wiring, blocked underground drainage systems, old roofing not yet leaking but in very poor condition, and subtle cracks in walls that may be symptomatic of more serious foundation failure.

Another concern is that the inspector who is called in at an appraiser’s request is usually asked to perform only a partial inspection, in order to investigate one or two items, raising the possibility that other serious problems may still be overlooked. Even though such limited inspections may seem simpler and even adequate at the time, it represents short-sighted thinking. Ultimately, it is in everyone’s best interest to inspect the property thoroughly and make sure the buyer doesn’t take on more home repair bills than he or she bargained for.

Horror Story – Julie, a single mum with two kids, a 9 year old Oliver and his 6 year old brother Ben, Julie has a full time executive job and works 50 hours a week, some from home. Julie downsized last year when she lost he husband to illness. Julie needed to be closer to work and the school and she could not manage the mortgage on her single wage.
Julie found the perfect home, it was ten minutes walk to school and a further fifteen to her office, it had the three bedrooms, the en suite she so desperately wanted, secure backyard, it even had a lockup garage.

On auction day Julie was beside herself with nerves, so she got her brother to do the bidding for her, she was pre approved for $380K. Julie’s brother won the final bid with $384,500. The extra $4,500 just maxed out the credit card.
The day Julie and the kids moved in was the day their world fell apart. The house sure looked different without the furniture, floor coverings and all those wonderful paintings on the walls. She immediately found termite damage in the floor boards where the king size bed was, she found the bathroom floor was rotten around the shower from years of leaking, the ceiling inside the bedroom 2 robe had collapsed under the weight of the water soaked insulation, and the timber stumps under bedroom 3 and the hallway were also rotted out from the water ponding under the house.

The total repair bill was in excess of $17,000 and the lender refused to advance Julie any more. She had reached her limit. The banks valuer didn’t raise any concerns by saying he is not qualified to comment on property defects, the lender said Julie had demonstrated her ability to pay the mortgage and ticked all the other boxes, so all the numbers stacked up.

The word got out about the house and Julie couldn’t resell it. Julie ended up declaring bankruptcy and she lost the house, She is now living back with her retired parents and catching an hour and a half hour train ride to and from work six days a week, Oliver and Ben were forced to change schools and friends.
The bank was forced to sell the house for $290,000 12 months after Julie left. Taking a loss of $90,000.

It seems incredible that a simple $350 property inspection could have avoided all this.

Wake Up Australia; Now that’s a case for “Mandatory Property Inspections” To continue without them is simply “Un Australian”.

Enzo Raimondo - Auction System's Fair, You Can Quote Me

Peter Mericka — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:46:00 GMT

OPINION
by Peter Mericka B.A., LL.B
Real Estate Lawyer
Qualified Practising Conveyancer Victoria
Director Lawyers Real Estate Pty Ltd

Following on from my previous posting in which I acknowledged Enzo Raimondo, CEO of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV) as a master of the partial-truth, comes a newspaper article in which Raimondo confirms that "Much misinformation is abroad about property sales" (sic). Of course, Raimondo does not acknowledge his own role in the dissemination of this misinformation.

The Age newspaper is very generous to Enzo Raimondo and the REIV. Raimondo is permitted to misinform consumers on a wide variety of real estate-related topics through his own column in the Saturday Age, and is even permitted to write his own copy. To see just how well The Age looks after Raimondo and his crew, take a look at this item featured on the ABC's Media Watch: "Dirty Little Secrets".

Here is is the full article from today's edition of The Age:

"Auction system's fair, you can quote me

Much misinformation is abroad about property sales, writes Enzo Raimondo.

SINCE changes were made to the Estate Agents Act in 2004, including the banning of under and over-quoting, we have seen community discussion about the practice on two occasions in 2007 and again this year. These two years have one thing in common: unusually strong demand resulting in vendors', purchasers' and estate agents' expectations being exceeded.

The stories of potential purchasers, and the views of commentators, are frequently reported but rarely are the views of vendors or purchasers canvassed. Like the true picture about this state's real estate laws, their stories are missing. If the vendors' or the purchasers' stories were covered, one thing would be clear: the most important two people in any property transaction generally don't think the property sold for too much, cost too much or was underquoted.

In a rising market the estate agent may wrongly estimate the sale price, but that does not change the fact that the vendor is pleased because he got a great price. The successful purchaser is pleased because he thinks he got a great home at a fair price.

The underbidders may be disappointed because they did not secure the home they wanted at the price they wanted but that alone doesn't prove the estate agent or vendor has done the wrong thing; it just shows how auctions work.

Auctions are designed to get the vendor the best price on the day and that depends on a few things none of which is the advertised price. It depends on demand on the day, how many bidders, how much they are prepared to spend, comparable homes that are also for sale and, finally, what the vendor wants.

If you want the surety of knowing what the vendor wants, private sales are the way to go. Unlike an auction, the vendor's asking price is generally advertised for the 70 per cent of homes in Victoria sold privately.

If you do want to bid at an auction, it's critical to know that sale prices may often exceed advertised prices and that is not underquoting.

The laws in Victoria require that an estate agent neither overquotes to the vendor to get his business nor underquotes to the public. The price they quote to the vendor and the public are the same unless the vendor has told them the minimum he will accept, in which case the higher one must be reflected in the advertising.

It is suggested that estate agents should be able to predict in a hot market what a home might sell for and their quotes should reflect the final sale price. In a fast-moving market that would only result in estate agents providing inflated quotes to vendors and being accused of overquoting.

It's important to note that complaints from consumers to Consumer Affairs Victoria are running at about 600 a year out of 140,000 residential property sales seemingly indicating that it's really not a problem, but that doesn't mean we can't improve the transparency and operation of the market.

The Real Estate Institute of Victoria supports the action of Consumer Affairs and we would like three changes. We have asked the minister to change the law to ban advertisements that use "price plus". If accomplished, this will make it much easier for consumers to compare property ads, as agents will have only three options: no price, a range, or a flat price. This is a position we have held for 2 years.

We want increased education about the state's laws and how auctions work, so consumers can be better informed. The more access to information about the auction process there is, and the more information there is about what similar homes sold for, the better consumers' judgments will be.

Finally, when an estate agent uses a price in an advertisement, we want the agent to show every prospective purchaser the comparable sales that were used to reach that judgment. This will enable the purchaser to make the best judgment about how much they want to spend on the day and the highest bidder will win.

Enzo Raimondo is chief executive of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria."

Let's examine Enzo's free plug, and see if we can address any misinformation it may contain...

More about "Enzo Raimondo - Auction System's Fair, You Can Quote Me "...

FREE Download - Contract of Sale of Real Estate

Click on this link:

Lawyers Conveyancing is proud to sponsor the REIC

Wrong Advice From NSW Office Of Fair Trading

Peter Mericka — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:05:00 GMT

OPINION
by George Rousos
Director
Industry Training Consultants
george@itc.nsw.edu.au

Applications for an ex gratia payment will be quite common in the future, unless the NSW Office Of Fair Trading start looking closely at the relevant provisions of the NSW Property Stock & Business Agents Act 2002.

An ex gratia payment is made in the exercise of the prerogative power of Government. A payment may be made if a person has suffered a financial loss or other detriment directly as a result of the workings of Government. This detriment must be of a nature which cannot be remedied or compensated through recourse to legal proceedings (or where it is impractical to do so).

After I received a letter of response from Commissioner for Fair Trading Lyn Baker, concerning the placement of SOLD stickers on signage on properties after the conduct of an auction. I was expecting to receive a legally correct answer, but to my surprise what I stumbled on was nothing but false and misleading.

On Thursday 9th July, here is my response to that letter, which clearly shows, even they don't know their own laws.

"Hi David,

My name is George Rousos, sometime back you responded to an email I sent to you, in respect to some of the legal issues at auction. In one of the paragraphs where you had responded to my query on the placement of SOLD stickers on signage on properties after the conduct of an auction. ( as indicated below)

A statement is taken to be false or misleading if it is of such a nature that it would reasonably tend to lead to a belief in the existence of a state of affairs that does not in fact exist, whether or not the statement indicates that the state of affairs does exist.

With all due respect, what you are saying here, still contravenes section 51 of the act...

More about "Wrong Advice From NSW Office Of Fair Trading"...

FREE Download - Contract of Sale of Real Estate

Click on this link:

Lawyers Conveyancing is proud to sponsor the REIC

REIV Votes Against Corruption Remedy

Peter Mericka — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:51:00 GMT

OPINION
by Peter Mericka B.A., LL.B
Real Estate Lawyer
Qualified Practising Conveyancer Victoria
Director Lawyers Real Estate Pty Ltd

I believe that the real estate industry in Victoria is the most corrupt in Australia. This is confirmed time and again, not only by the conduct of individual real estate agents, but also by the behaviour of the peak body representing real estate agents, the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV). We have seen how the REIV condones criminal conduct by providing its members with REIV prepared contract conditions, encouraging estate agent involvement in the preparation of sale offers and ignoring the growing problem of bribery and "referral fees". As if to confirm its role in maintaining the right of real estate agents to cheat and deceive, the REIV has now voted against a measure by which, according to the former head of its own ethics committee, "...almost all dubious price manipulation practices would be eliminated".

According to Herald Sun journalist Craig Binnie:

"ESTATE agents have voted down a proposal to stamp out deliberate under-quoting on properties being auctioned.

A secret committee ballot within the Real Estate Institute of Victoria voted nine to three against a motion that would have forced vendors to publish the prices they were willing to sell at.

The motion proposed that the REIV ask the State Government to introduce legislation requiring vendors to publish their reserve price before auction.

Complaints from angry buyers have been brushed aside by agents, the REIV and Consumer Affairs Victoria.

The former head of the REIV's ethics committee, John Keating, said his motion was voted down despite growing discontent about the "misleading and deceptive practices of many estate agents in over-quoting to vendors and under-quoting to purchasers".

Mr Keating, the managing director of Keatings Real Estate, said if vendors and estate agents were required to publish their reserve price, almost all dubious price manipulation practices would be eliminated."

(Craig Binnie Herald Sun June 29, 2009)

More about "REIV Votes Against Corruption Remedy"...

FREE Download - Contract of Sale of Real Estate

Click on this link:

Lawyers Conveyancing is proud to sponsor the REIC

Beware of misleading advertising to 'get people through the door'

mauzie — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:15:03 GMT

Recently I was flicking through a newspaper real estate magazine and happened upon a house advertised as a 'Mortgagor's Auction'. It made my blood boil. I think the intention of such and ad is to make some people think it is a mortgagee auction and therefore maybe a cheap buy.

I checked with the agent just in case it was spelling error but no such luck. I was informed that it is just 'clever marketing' designed to get people through the door!

I contacted the community paper that prints the magazine to see what the editor's thoughts on such an advertisement is. In giving me his response it became very clear that he had confused the words mortgagor and mortgagee so what hope would the average person have?

Here is the response I recieved:

Thanks for your email.
> A mortgagor is the person who lends the money, while the mortgagee is
> the person the property is mortgaged to. In this case I believe the ad
> refers to the lender auctioning the house.
> If you have any further concerns it may be prudent to contact .............directly.
> Kind regards