[ad_1]
An Auckland real estate agent who “slashed” $ 100,000 from the price of a seller’s property without permission was found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct by the Disciplinary Court of Realtors.
Michael Sheldon, who works for Elysium Realty, which is listed as Harveys Te Atatu Peninsula, told sellers Tara and Ryan Nel that he could sell his home in Laingholm for $ 1.45 million while telling buyers that it could be bought. ” above $ 1.1 million. “
The vendors’ bottom line was $ 1.2 million and they were unaware that Sheldon had “cut” $ 100,000.
Sheldon received two offers, one for about $ 1.05 million and another for $ 1.06 million, but both were rejected by the Nels, who took the matter to the Complaint Evaluation Committee claiming that he had violated the Realtors Act of 2008. .
READ MORE:
* Police officer ‘role model’ guilty of defeating the course of justice
* The real estate agent loses the license after consulting a fortune teller to help sell the client’s home.
* Censored Realtors lose appeal against $ 18,400 money order
The couple arranged for a friend to attend an open house to test Sheldon’s comments and he told the friend that the property was worth between $ 1.1 million and $ 1.2 million.
Sheldon disputed this, saying that while he couldn’t recall all the details of the friend’s attendance, he would have told you what he told other attendees, which was that buyer feedback had been around $ 1.2 million.
He later said that he had made an honest mistake and mistook her for another potential buyer.
While Sheldon agreed, he did not inform the Nels that he was texting the price to prospective buyers, without their consent, claiming that he had acted in their best interest to obtain an offer that could be negotiated higher.
fake images
The real estate agent told prospective buyers they could buy a home for $ 100,000 below the sellers’ final offer without asking them. (file photo).
The court said it also accepted that it was required to act on the plaintiffs’ instructions and that the agency agreement did not give it “a blank slate to market your property however you wanted.
But Sheldon still maintained that some degree of license was needed to sell a house, it was a marketing strategy, and the whistleblowers were fully aware that this was how he sold.
He said this is how he received offers and how he worked.
The court’s decision supported the findings of the Complaint Evaluation Committee.
Sheldon violated the law when he sent the texts, because he did not have the plaintiffs’ instructions to send them, and the declaration that interest was expected “in excess of $ 1.1 million” was contrary to his interests, according to the court’s decision.
It found that Sheldon misled buyers about the price that sellers would consider and withheld information that should have been given to buyers and sellers.
The court said that since Sheldon had seven years of experience as a seller, he should have known what his obligations were and that he did not have the “license” to market the property however he wanted.
A decision on the sanction is pending.
Sheldon said Things he had no comment to make on the decision. He did not say whether he would appeal the decision.
