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

Eight long years ago an over-zealous clerk at Consumer Affairs Victoria told me that I must either shut down Lawyers Real Estate Pty Ltd or obtain an estate agent's licence, otherwise Consumer Affairs Victoria would prosecute me for being an unlicensed estate agent. When Consumer Affairs Victoria investigated the matter and informed me that there would be no prosecution and no further investigations, I regarded the matter as settled. I did not expect that Consumer Affairs Victoria would join forces with the REIV and a prominent politician and adopt a strategy that would fall within the definition of "corrupt conduct".

What Is Corrupt Conduct?

Victoria does not yet have a Corruption Commission, so I will refer to the definition of corrupt conduct as it appears on the website of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption:

"While it can take many forms, corrupt conduct occurs when:

• a public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others
• a public official acts dishonestly or unfairly, or breaches public trust 
• a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a public official to use his or her position in a way that is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust."

In this particular case Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) tried to stop me and my firm, Lawyers Real Estate Pty Ltd (Lawyers Real Estate) from offering real estate sales services to the consumers of Victoria. Because CAV knew that legal action would not succeed, it embarked on a strategy of misinformation, harassment and intimidation over a period of 8 years.

More about "Consumer Affairs Victoria - The Reason We Need A Corruption Commission!"

OPINION
by Tim O'Dwyer M.A., LL.B
Solicitor
Consumer Advocate
watchdog@argonautlegal.com.au

If a good Samaritan wants to buy you a property, watch out for any equitable strings attached!

After Charles Irvine and Soozie Cooper met through an internet dating service in March 2006, they entered into a sexual relationship.   Charles was a successful businessman while Soozie was less financially secure.   She had a job, owned her home and was paying off a bank mortgage.   Charles’ and Soozie’s relationship lasted until they had an argument in January 2007.   They were never de facto partners, remained friends then became opposing Supreme Court litigants.

In June 2007 Soozie told Charles about her financial problems.  Over the next six months he happily helped  out his former girl-friend with eight deposits totaling $10,500 to her bank account  enabling Soozie to pay off a personal loan, a hospital account and to reduce a credit card debt.  She did not accept Charles’ other to pay off her mortgage and take a caveat over her home to secure this payment. 

During this time Charles helpfully suggested to an apparently depressed Soozie that she should go north with her animals.  Soozie considered this, decided to sell her Brisbane home and quickly found one on the Sunshine Coast.  But she could not afford to buy it without Charles’  help.    No worries.  Within days cavalier Charles paid a $1000 deposit on a contract for Soozie’s Sunshine Coast purchase and later placed  $382,354 (representing balance purchase monies, costs and outlays) in her solicitors’ trust account.

On 4th December, while emailing trust account details, Soozie reassured Charles:  “I will keep track of all these monies and repay you”.

A week later Soozie asked Charles’ what price she should accept for her house, then explained:  “I want to sell asap so you get your money.”  “That’s  an incentive for me,”  she continued,   “The more I get, the more you get”.

On 12th December, after Charles made the final payment for her purchase, Soozie emailed him asking when he wanted her to sign “that paper” which he was “having drawn up about the money.”

Charles said his lawyers had been slack in getting the paperwork done. “ Technically we do not know each other’s share until your house sells so there is no hurry,” he added before promising to get onto it and let Soozie know.

More about "Sugar-Daddy Sought Security for His Largess"...

FREE Download - Contract of Sale of Real Estate

Click on this link:

Lawyers Conveyancing is proud to sponsor the REIC

OPINION
by Tim O'Dwyer M.A., LL.B
Solicitor
Consumer Advocate
watchdog@argonautlegal.com.au

Several months after contracting to buy six beach resort units, as well as the resort’s management and letting rights, Fred Sutton had second thoughts about his company’s purchase.

No matter that the seller company had already made some post-contract concessions:  a price reduction on the rights contract, and extensions of time for finance and the completion date of both contracts.  Each contract was conditional on the other, so a valid termination of one meant the consequential crashing of the other.
 
“Can you get me out?” Sutton asked his conveyancing lawyer - two days before settlement.

Because the signed, sealed and delivered contracts appeared binding, with everything in place for settlement, the lawyer was not hopeful.  But, in the course of anxiously looking for any less-than-obvious loopholes, he mentioned what he was about to his secretary.

“I have a vague recollection,” she volunteered, “that the disclosure statement was unsigned when the draft contracts arrived.”  “I think I made a note,” she added.

When her boss revisited the files, he was delighted to discover that his secretary (bless her precautious heart!) had made more than a note.  This law office veteran had actually fixed a stick-it-note (with the words “not signed by seller”) on this critical document, then she had taken a photocopy of the duly noted signature-less disclosure statement.

Section 206 of the relevant state statute requires unit sellers to give prospective buyers, before they enter into contracts, a statement “signed by the seller or a person authorised by the seller” disclosing financial and other details about the body corporate.  A buyer may cancel a subsequent contract anytime before settlement if the seller has not complied with this section.  Sellers (agents and lawyers) beware!

Here the seller’s lawyer had sent Sutton’s lawyer a letter enclosing the proposed units contract, the proposed rights contract and a detailed disclosure statement.   None of these had been signed, apart from the letter (which the seller’s lawyer had signed).  After some minor amendments had been agreed to Sutton signed all three documents.  These were then returned  to the seller’s lawyer who, after the seller had signed and dated the contracts and disclosure statement, forwarded them to Sutton’s lawyer.

Clearly, in Sutton’s lawyer’s opinion, Section 206 had not been complied with before either contract was entered into.  So he promptly terminated each contract and requested the refund of his client’s deposits.

More about "You can't always rely on your lawyers signature"...

FREE Download - Contract of Sale of Real Estate

Click on this link:

Lawyers Conveyancing is proud to sponsor the REIC

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

After experiencing first hand the legal knowledge and reasoning of Mr. Robert Guthrie, Acting Manager, Licensing for the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading, I have written a comedy script for the ABC's 7.30 Report. The script is based on a letter penned by Mr. Guthrie concerning the operations of Lawyers Real Estate.

Lawyers Real Estate featured in a segment on Channel 7's Today Tonight program on Friday 25 June, 2010, and there has been an overwhelming response from lawyers who are interested in establishing Lawyers Real Estate franchises in New South Wales.

A couple of enquirers have asked about the reaction of the NSW Office of Fair Trading to the Lawyers Real Estate concept, having seen how Consumer Affairs Victoria was forced into a humiliating back-down. (Click on the link above to view the full Today Tonight segment).

Unfortunately, like his Victorian counterpart, Mr. Guthrie appears not to have sought legal advice, and has clearly failed to properly inform himself as to the application of the laws of New South Wales to the Lawyers Real Estate concept. In a letter to the Director, Industry Training Consultants (a Sydney real estate agent training business), Mr. Guthrie demonstrated the way ignorance, combined with pride, can lead to absurdity. (To read a copy of the NSW OFT letter CLICK HERE)

The following script is how I would expect an interview with Mr. Guthrie would unfold...

More about "Fairness From NSW Office of Fair Trading? It's Problematic!"...

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

We have been overwhelmed with emails, texts and telephone calls from well-wishers. There were plenty of consumers interested in having Lawyers Real Estate sell their property for them, but also lawyers, conveyancers, accountants and even some real estate agents who are interested in owning a Lawyers Real Estate franchise.

Lawyers Real Estate featured in an item on Channel 7's Today Tonight program on Friday 25 June, 2010, and the response from consumers and real estate professionals alike has been amazing.

As expected, we received calls from people who are intending to sell their homes in the not-too-distant future, but what was surprising was the number of callers from outside of Victoria who called about franchise opportunities.

Participation by non-lawyers

Non-lawyers, particularly conveyancers and real estate agents, have realised that it is possible to own a Lawyers Real Estate franchise without having to be a qualified lawyer, provided that a "legal practitioner director" is appointed as required by the Legal Profession Act.

The Lawyers Real Estate franchise model has been developed to ensure that compliance with the Legal Profession Act is an essential part of the system. The system itself ensures compliance. By combining of the requirements of LAW 9000, the Ten Objectives of Affective Management Systems (TOAMS) established by the Legal Services Commissioner and the Lawyers Real Estate Franchise Operations Manual, we have created a tight and virtually fail-proof real estate law firm model.

While our target franchisees are existing law firms, we are maintaining contact with interested non-lawyers as well.

Consumers are in the mood for change

The response to our TV exposure has confirmed a strong consumer mood for change. Suffice it to say that consumers generally are resentful of the ever-increasing cost of commission-based real estate services, the refusal of the real estate industry to share the costs saved by advances in technology, and the misconduct that has become commonplace, and almost expected of real estate agents.

Enormous response to one night's exposure on one TV channel

Here are some of the email messages we received after one night's exposure on just one TV channel. We have not included the text messages received, as they were too numerous to retain. If your email is not among those reproduced below we apologise, but as you will appreciate, there is simply not enough space to include them all. We will, however, reply individually to each email received.

Lawyers Real Estate is a law firm that sells real estate for its clients without involving any real estate agents. To make the selling and buying of real estate quick, simple and transparent, the SLOD! real estate bidding facility has been established.

In this series of postings we will be examining SLOD! in detail, explaining how it works why it is the best and fairest way to negotiate real estate transactions, and how to use it effectively.

We also invite questions and comments from consumers, real estate agents, conveyancers, lawyers and others involved in real estate transactions.

The problem with online bidding systems is that they invariably require the bidder to pay money if they want to make a bid. This acts as a deterrent to bidders who simply want to know if the vendor is interested in selling the property for the amount put forward by the bidder. It also makes the bidding process slow, cumbersome and risky.

SLOD! requires no payments of any kind by any party. This makes it quick simple and fair.

For an example of a property just listed and available for purchase on SLOD!, CLICK HERE

This is the first of what will become a series of informative and instructional postings. Feedback and questions from readers will determine the topics we discuss in future postings.

OPINION
by Tim O'Dwyer M.A., LL.B
Solicitor
Consumer Advocate
watchdog@argonautlegal.com.au

Agents might heed the Appeal Panel’s general warning to be “especially careful” that buyers are informed of material matters not discoverable through “undertaking usual enquiries,” and to be wary of not disclosing anything “particularly unusual” about a property.

STORY ONE FROM QUEENSLAND:

When Chris and Mary Carr went house‑hunting they noticed tradesmen working on one of the houses they inspected.  “The owners are still preparing the property for sale”, remarked estate agent Warren Bligh during this inspection.  Chris and Mary had a second inspection a few days later and soon decided to buy the house.

Bligh promptly prepared a contract containing the standard Law society / Real Estate Institute conditions, and suggested Carrs utilise one of the contract’s optional clauses.  This made the contract, which Carrs happily signed, conditional upon satisfactory building/pest inspections of the property.

Carrs’ building and pest inspectors reported that the house was in good condition.  Although termite workings could be seen, there was no evidence of termites and no visual timber damage.  A chemical barrier had been applied, but some areas had been missed.  Carrs were not happy with this state of affairs, cancelled the contract and got their deposit back.

This often happens with residential sales, except in the A.C.T. where sellers must supply building and pest reports to prospective buyers.  What followed here was unusual.  Carrs discovered that Bligh had not told the full story behind why tradesmen were at the property.  What he knew (but did not disclose) was that the owners, before listing for sale, became aware of termites in the house.  Pest controllers were engaged to undertake treatment and preventative programs while tradesmen were needed to repair the termite damage.

Carrs would not have contracted to buy this property (and wasted good money on reports) if they’d known these facts first.

What followed next was more unusual.  Carrs complained to the local Fair Trading office which brought disciplinary proceedings against Bligh in a Consumer Tribunal.  He was charged with breaching statutory Code of Conduct obligations by, firstly, failing to act fairly and, secondly, by engaging in misleading conduct.

More about "Two Tales of Estate Agents' Wilful Silence"...

FREE Download - Contract of Sale of Real Estate

Click on this link:

Lawyers Conveyancing is proud to sponsor the REIC

OPINION
by Tim O'Dwyer M.A., LL.B
Solicitor
Consumer Advocate
watchdog@argonautlegal.com.au

What if sellers don’t ‘fess up if there’s no record of council inspections? They can sell regardless! What if a seller’s carport, garage or deck was built illegally? No selling worries! What if a home is termite-riddled? Don’t tell! And if sellers obtain a pre-sale building report showing heaps of problems? Don’t mention the report!

This is why “buyer beware” is the first unwritten rule of real estate in Queensland. Will it stay that way? Yes. Because Queensland’s government refuses to legally oblige home sellers to disclose material information to prospective buyers.

No matter that seven years ago the ACT Labor Government introduced reforms which (not unreasonably) require sellers, before putting a property up for sale, to give to buyers details of building approvals and inspections together with current building/pest inspection reports. The Northern Territory Labor Government is currently proposing to bring in disclosure legislation whereby sellers must (not unreasonably) give buyers swimming pool compliance certificates, flood information and reports on whether structures comply with building laws. And the New South Wales Labor Government will shortly require sellers (not unreasonably) to give buyers building/ pest inspection reports.

When a disgruntled homebuyer recently complained to Queensland Fair Trading Minister Peter Lawlor about expenses needlessly incurred because a seller and an agent failed to disclose building defects and illegal structures, the Minister’s unsympathetic reply merely stated the problem:

“While a real estate agent needs to verify the material facts when selling a property and encourage the seller to disclose all information, there is no obligation or legal requirement for the agent or seller to conduct building and pest inspections, or conduct council approval surveys prior to listing a property for sale."

“Pest and building inspections and council approvals are the responsibility of the purchaser,” he unhelpfully explained.

More about "Can flood-prone Queensland homes be sold "...

FREE Download - Contract of Sale of Real Estate

Click on this link:

Lawyers Conveyancing is proud to sponsor the REIC

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

No, SLOD! is not a typographical error, it's the name of the website Lawyers Real Estate uses to sell properties for its clients. Lawyers Real Estate is a law firm that sells real estate for its clients for a single fixed-fee, without involving real estate agents.

To see the property most recently sold by Lawyers Real Estate, just click on the Facebook link below.

To hear some past clients of Lawyers Real Estate describe their experiences in selling through Lawyers Real Estate, run this short video:

For more information about the Lawyers Real Estate sales concept, visit the Lawyers Real Estate website by clicking on the link below:

Lawyers Real Estate

We are now using Facebook to provide answers to consumers' questions about real estate related matters.

If you have a question, comment or complaint about the real estate industry or those involved in it, the Lawyers Real Estate Facebook Page is the place to go.

Where a short questions is asked, the answer will be added on the "Wall", and where longer questions or issues are raised we may open a discussion on the "Discussions" page.

In addition, the page is regularly updated with interesting tweets from our Twitter page and blog postings from various real estate sites.

We would also like to have readers suggest articles of interest to be posted.

We look forward to seeing you at Lawyers Real Estate page on Facebook.

What do you do when your property has been listed for sale and your agent refuses, on the basis of the Privacy Act, to give you the names of prospective buyers introduced to your property? Well, you stick it right up your agent as clients of mine recently did.

These folk had listed their home with a local agent who was a member of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland (REIQ). Their listing agreement with the agent, unusually, did not provide for a sole or exclusive agency. Rather, it was an open listing which meant my clients had the contractual right to try to sell their home themselves. So, while their agent showed buyers through the property, my clients placed their own adverts on the Internet and dealt with a number of consequential private enquiries. When one of these Internet buyers offered to buy at the right price, a private sale was negotiated subject to the parties’ solicitors finalizing formal and binding contracts.

More about "Real Estate Agents & Privacy (or is it Secrecy?) "...

Hon. Bruce Atkinson MLC is the Deputy President of the Legislative Council of Victoria.

Atkinson's problem is that he has been used by the real estate industry to further its cause at the expense of real estate consumers.

It is sad to see a person in public office used to further the interests of a group as undeserving as the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV) and its members, but it becomes quite pathetic when the political figure himself is left looking like a buffoon.

In this particular case, the Atkinson was procured by the RIEV to stand up in the Legislative Council of Victoria and attack the Minister for Consumer Affairs for allowing a lawyer to sell real estate. Unfortunately for Atkinson, lawyers have always been permitted to sell real estate, and are the only professionals who are fully qualified to negotiate real estate contracts.

But Atkinson is a proud man, and to this day he asserts that lawyers cannot sell real estate. A bit like Monty Python's Black Knight who, with his arms and legs removed, continues to proclaim, "I am invincible".  More...

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

The hypocrisy is astounding. Enzo Raimondo told the Herald Sun newspaper "If stamp duty rates are not reduced then anyone buying an average home will pay, as a percentage of the purchase price, a higher amount of stamp duty than they ever have before." What Enzo chooses to ignore is that real estate agent commissions have doubled, and none of the benefits of advances in technology have been passed on to consumers. Surely, after gorging itself on ever-increasing commissions, the real estate industry should also be taking smaller portions from the plate.

In the Melbourne Herald-Sun newspaper (Monday 12 April, 2010), CEO of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV), Enzo Raimondo, made these observations:

"In 1999, the median price was $270,000 and stamp duty $11,860, or 4.4 per cent." (At the same time, commission charged by a real estate agent on the sale is generally 3 per cent of the purchase price)

"The median house price across Melbourne is now $540,500 and the stamp duty is $24,400 - about 4.5 per cent of the purchase price."(Similarly, the commission charged by a real estate agent on the sale remains around 3 per cent of the purchase price)

"If the stamp duty rates are not reduced then anyone buying an average home now will pay, as a percentage of the purchase price, a higher amount of stamp duty than they ever have before."

According to reporter Matt Johnston, "The Real Estate Institute of Victoria wants the State Government to cut the tax level, as it did in 2006."

The response of the government is that the GFC has affected government revenue. "The global financial crisis wiped over $220 million worth of stamp duty from our revenue in the first six months of this year alone", said a spokesman for Treasurer John Lenders.

Commission as a tax charged by real estate agents

The commission charged by real estate agents on the sale of real estate is not related to the effort or overheads of the real estate agent. Commission is charged as a percentage of the sale/purchase price of the property. Effectively, commission is a tax, charged by real estate agents.

There is a difference, however, between the tax charged by the government on property sales, and the tax charged by real estate agents on property sales. One impost is channeled into the coffers of the government for the purposes of funding public works etc., while the other is channeled into the pockets of real estate agents.

More about "REIV Hypocrisy - Cut Stamp Duty While Commissions Increase"...

FREE Download - Contract of Sale of Real Estate

Click on this link:

Lawyers Conveyancing is proud to sponsor the REIC

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

When stupidity reaches the front page of The Age newspaper, something has to be said.  Today’s Age screams, “Push to end underquoting” (The Age, Monday 29 March, 2010 p.1).  Unfortunately, the author, Property Editor Marika Dobbin, appears to have ignored the real problem and has just followed the parade of misinformed real estate industry commentators.  Let me confirm, the real estate industry in Victoria does NOT have an underquoting problem – it has a stupidity problem!

Here are the reasons why I say the real estate industry has a stupidity problem, rather than an underquoting problem:

1.       A real estate agent is permitted to offer property valuations after completing a few weeks of night school at a TAFE college.

That’s STUPID!

2.       A property valuer must complete a full tertiary degree course, followed by industry induction training before being permitted to prepare valuations, and yet they are not promoted by Consumer Affairs Victoria, the REIV or the media as the experts in providing property value information.

That’s STUPID!

3.       Real estate agents are not permitted to call their “valuations” valuations, because they are not qualified to value real estate.  However, they if they call their valuations “appraisals” they can get away with it.

That’s STUPID!

4.       In a knee-jerk reaction to underquoting, the government required the untrained, unqualified real estate agent to provide a valuation on a vendor’s property, regardless of the real estate agent’s experience or lack of experience in valuing real estate. (See Section 47A of the Estate Agents Act 1980.)

That’s STUPID!