Underquoting

<html><body>
What if the property sold at the reserve? How much could this have cost the vendor? Applying the what if? test.
If I was to say I was taken-back by the response provided by the auctioneer to a tweet I commented on it would be an understatement. Allow me to share with you the event; so quickly pour yourself a coffee and read on. 
Reports were floating, or should I say flying, around on social media over the weekend about the great achievements and results of an onsite auction in Granville. In the main, it was all to do with praise of the selling agent and the creative selling techniques I refer to as “sleight of hand illusion” to sell property, to be candid.
The fundamental questions asked by me on twitter, of the auctioneers tweeting, were simple and basic. Was it a case of “underquoting” or was it “ignorance” by the agency to not know the true value of the land? 
I didn’t believe the questions noted above, were out of line. Particularly when I looked at the facts of the auction campaign and paralleled these with results achieved. 
One thing is for sure: we can rule out “market forces” for the out of line result, as the tolerance on such a notion would be as I have previously mentioned in other articles, a mere 11% variable from the “price-guide”. A tolerance that is within the prescribed tolerance guides set in the State Agents Act VIC and FT NSW. 
The facts:
<ul>
<li>The property is advertised as having a lot of development potential </li>
<li>Agent seemingly appears to be targeting developers and the neighboring club</li>
<li>Property called on the market at $1,250,000 and sold for $2,781,000 </li>
<li>The achieved sale percentage above reserve is equal to 123% approximately</li>
</ul>
Now, somebody, I believe got it totally wrong. On face value it appeared like a classic case of “underquoting” but unless the documents signed by the vendor with the agent, which determines the price-guide are made public, we may never know. 
However, in this case I am leaning more to the belief that some agents simply don’t know the value of land. The value of the land with development potential in the current market, is what I am referring to. In the alternative, value of property that is not common to the local agent, such as the initial Millers Point auction fiasco.  Where the property owned by the State Government was gifted away. 
Reports of auction results
As we read through the different stories being published about the sale, there are conflicting accounts and statements that make one wonder if the correct price-guide and reserve was set. You may form your own opinion as you read on.
Working on land-banking and any other form of land acquisition by developers, to determine values may be as simple as: understanding “gross realization” of the project to be built on the land being acquired, determining “construction costs” and with all this, taking into account possible lot yields due to “State Planning” and “Council Planning” changes to zoning. 
In basic terms; what will be the “Return On Investment”. No developer likes to work on anything less than to double their money on what the land cost them. 
In essence, I am leaning to the belief that the property was misrepresented to be worth anything less than $2.5 million, particularly when we apply the Regulation’s tolerance factors on the face value of the end result. 
The question remains, what did the developers attending the auction know that the agent didn’t know, to turn up in droves? Now this is why a professional is used, to know and be in control and not allow the sale to be reliant on, a whim and a prayer or hope of a sunny day. 
My first question
But the question will remain however; was the agent aware and well versed in what was going on, as I received the tweet reply from the auctioneer? See below. 
My second question
The second question is: why was this tweet deleted from the auctioneer’s twitter-handle soon after it was sent to me as a response? Don’t you just love conspiracy theories? 
The What-If Test
However, the seriousness of the present situation stands. A problem that is amplified at the auction under scrutiny, highlighted by the results achieved. 
Agreeable, and although the results are beneficial to the vendor, this is a problem in the Real Estate Industry and one that demands closer attention. 
The concern once again is best explained and highlighted when we apply the What-If Test. 
<ul>
<li>What-If, the property was sold for $1,250,000 because it was presented with such a low price-guide in the first place, and</li>
<li>What-If, as the auctioneer replied: the agent got it right. As I understand, in pricing it low to attract the interest it got? </li>
</ul>
Now, What-If you are reliant on an agent or agency that is not aware of: council changes, market forces and true land values? What-If, the result is no more than the price the agent advised you, when they presented you with a market appraisal and set the price guide? 
In this instance, we may never know if it was a case of under-quoting or sheer ignorance, unless FT NSW investigates the reasons behind the 123% discrepancy in price-guide to end-sale. Like me, I’m sure you too are left with the thought: under-quoting or the agent got it wrong? 
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

ealmedia-arK4DBYLjS

Underquoting or industry ignorance? Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
Sydney may have forgotten Natalie Jean Wood. But Real Estate Agents haven’t forgotten to underquote; when it comes to auctioning a property.
I definitely have something to say about what I perceived may well be, blatant underquoting strategies used in the marketing of the Surry Hills property: 139 Kippax Street, <a href="/expert-insights/buying/50300-surry-hills-terrace-listing-of-the-women-sydney-forgot" target="_blank">the home once owned by Natalie Wood</a>.
It will take more than a coffee to calm me down, particularly after my client spent $4,000 doing Due Diligence (DD) prior to the auction.
The price guide that was given to me and other interested parties I spoke with at the time, was: $550,000-$650,000.
First cab off the rank, and to immediately dispel any misconceptions you may have. Misconceptions about me being a disgruntled buyer’s agent and particularly since I didn’t purchase the property, on behalf of my client.
<ol start="1">
<li>Part of the DD we undertook revealed that land in the area was worth approximately $10,000-$11,000/sqm.</li>
<li>There was some value in the building regardless of what the refurbishment works would cost, and</li>
<li>We were under no illusion that we would obtain the home for the lower end of the price guide which was given.</li>
</ol>
It’s not rocket science
It’s not rocket science to work out property (price-guide) values that are closer to true market values. To ascertain these we look at the following:
<ol start="1">
<li>Land value as compared to other sales in the local area.</li>
<li>Value of existing structure/building (taking into account what is required or not required to be altered, changed or fixed) and integrity of existing structure.</li>
<li>Aesthetic values including but not limited to: visual appeal, location, heritage, charm or story behind the property, views and surrounding landscape and demographics.</li>
<li>Calculate costs to repair/refurbish/build and compare with current properties on the market and recent property sales. properties that would be of similar ilk.</li>
<li>If still in doubt? call a professional valuer for their opinion.</li>
</ol>
Therefore, for an agent or agency to hide behind the worn and dated argument of “no comparable sales” is just sheer ignorance or intentional use of sleight of hand tactics. I have written about these issues previously.
1) The what-if test. 
2) Dumb to underquote and dumber not to know property values.
Dialogue with agency
Correspondence and conversations with the agent, all led us to believe that the agent truly didn’t know the value of the property. On the alternative, we also thought that there may be an underlying driver to draw a crowd. We know the latter to be under-quoting.
If other buyers were going to be persuaded by either one of the above premises, we believed that this would work in our favor.
The low-ball price-guide may actually keep the value of the property low, this is what we presumed anyway. We felt that the low price-guide coupled with the added features of the home; the circumstance of the deceased owner and the dilapidated condition of the property, was a mix that would work in our favor.
Nonetheless, our limit was set at $900,000 and this took into account our estimated land value as well as the intrinsic and heritage value of the property. Yes, and the history that came with the home.
Again, we knew that the agent was off the mark completely. However, the agent insisted that the “buyer’s feedback” was $550,000-$650,000 and with the interest obtained, it may reach the $700,000 mark. I beg to differ.
A professional agent would have done and assessed the value more along the lines of $850,000-$900,000 and thus presenting a correct price-guide. A guide that is not reliant on; “buyer’s feedback” nor left to ignorance. But, I was not engaged to teach them how to do their job.
Don't you just hate it, when you call an agent and ask for the 'price-guide' and they respond with: don't know at this point in time, once we hold a few opens we will gauge the "buyer's feedback". Get real !!! and moving on...
The outcome
Well, my buyer was not successful; as much as I tried to slow things down, there were others that wanted the property at all costs. The home sold for $1,105,000.
One may well say, ‘market forces’ were at play once the auction reached and went beyond the $950,000 mark. 
Warning to agents
Now, if you really want to accept the argument that: any so called out-of-line sale price is influenced by the lack of comparable sales to go by and play the ignorance card, or even take ill advice from vendors? Perhaps it’s time a Professional Valuer was called in, to assist you.
Obtaining and contracting the services of a valuer, is a better option to support and protect you as you. After all, you are the professional real estate agent. Don't hang your hat on statements such as: "market forces" nor "the vendor made me do it" in the belief that these will protect you from prosecution.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

Sydney may have forgotten Natalie Jean Wood, but real estate agents haven’t forgotten to underquote: Edwin Almeida 

<html><body>
Soon we will be hearing more and more about the big sister of underquoting and this will be overquoting, and it bites.
Be warned, unlike the roar that politicians and our Real Estate Industry (REI) make about underquoting, this one will bite deep and hard into the pockets of REA’s and their offices.
Now that I have your attention, pour yourself a cup of coffee and read on. I will explain what overquoting entails. I will also explain the dangers it poses to both vendors and agents.
Overquoting
<ul>
<li>For most agents working in our industry, the term overquoting is mainly referred to as: buying the listing.</li>
<li>Buying the listing in turn refers to: informing the vendor that their property will sell for a lot more than what the market is demanding or dictating at the time.</li>
<li>The purpose of overquoting is: to obtain a listing under false pretense of a high sales price. Higher than the estimated values placed by other agents in the area.</li>
<li>The REA’s intention is: to eventually “condition” the vendor to accept less, as the buyers inspecting the property, offer what the market is truly dictating.</li>
</ul>
Underquoting serves the function to condition the buyers to believe they will buy the property for less, as low price guides are given by REA's. The agents on the other hand, hope that the auction frenzy will motivate them to pay more as they add competition to realistic buyers.
Underquoting, as a form of bait advertising, is a marketing process readily used in a heated property market.
The use of overquoting by the agent, is to win the listing and to have the chance of selling the property. The sales process which precedes winning the listing conditions the vendor to accept less than what the agents originally quote in their Comparative Market Analysis (CMA).
Overquoting is a form of deception used by agents, to convince vendors to sell through them and their office.
What will vendors do?
Now please pay very close attention as this is what I mean when I say overquoting will bite and bite hard.
Vendors will not sit back and take it on the chin, unlike buyers when they are deceived by bait advertising.
When vendors believe that their properties have dropped in value, as they compare the agent’s CMA to what is being offered, vendors will act and take action against the agent.
Real estate agents (REA) will soon find themselves in hot water and face litigation.
In the case of underquoting, the accumulated losses of individual’s time and money as a buyer, may total around $1000 on average. A loss, that may not necessarily warrant time and effort, to report the REA that is believed to be underquoting.
On the other hand, a perceived loss of $10's of thousands of dollars, to a vendor, will warrant a claim against the agent.
I have written about this in the past and have said; until losses justify time and effort spent by consumers, to lodge claims with the authorities, REA’s will do as they please.
However, be warned for what is to eventuate and is just around the corner.
Some REA’s will take it in their stride and heed this advice but some will also believe they are above the law and the authorities. It won’t surprise me to see the same REA’s that underquote lead the way to overquoting practices. Sadly most will again be members of the REI's.
The difference this time folks, it won’t be a toothless tiger on their case, it will be a vendor determined to be compensated.
 
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

Overquoting set to bite: Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
Unlawful and unethical marketing strategies, which are at the heart of a large percentage of auction campaigns, will be the demise for many vendors.
A failure for vendors and a bigger failure for the real estate industry. 
No price guide. Is it the new under-quoting?
Ignorance or blatant disregard?
To begin, when agents seemingly don't understand nor can confidently form an opinion about property prices, they should seriously get out of the industry and go back to selling cars.
Pushing vendors for an auction campaign and all because agents fail to understand the dynamics of real estate and appraising property is not the method to achieve the best outcomes. Confusion and misdirection does not lead to clarity.
In my many dealings with local agents, I have found that many agents not onl do not understand how to appraise property, they also don’t understand property marketing 101. Both are essential in the process to achieve the best result for vendors.
For many, the quickest and easiest method is to “take the property to auction.” Real estate agents see this as the fail-safe method. The good old, “I can’t be blamed for the low price – its market forces…” excuse.
In my opinion, achieving the best outcomes for the vendor is not about; speed of sale nor how easy it would be for the agent to manage the sale.
The above therefore translates to being a major issue for vendors. My reasoning will be summed up in this article, and under the following four points. 
Why so many agents push for auction campaigns
1)     When many agents push for “auction campaigns.” What do they really want to achieve?
a.     Tie-up the vendor and have them commit to accept a price on the day. All due to the vendor’s large expenditure in their auction marketing campaign.
b.     They don’t want to work for the vendor for long and rightfully earn the commission.
c.     There is a belief that when a property is auctioned off; the market dictates the best price on the day. This, in turn, forces the vendor to accept anything on the day. Even if it is below what buyers were willing to pay. See tweets by @REshortsell
2)     Agents have in the past, purposely and will continue to under-quote the property to draw a crowd. To the vendor this appears as;
a.     A good turnout. Therefore, whatever the final bid is, determines the so called value of the property on the day.
3)     Agents have purposely under-quoted to draw a crowd, and to the buyer this appears as;
a.     A need to bid and bid emotionally, due to an overwhelming fear of missing out on the property. Thus creating, the control needed for the agent to show the vendor the bidder’s participation; to give the illusion of success.
4)     Agents want a quick turnaround and a quick commission fix.
a. Auction campaigns run for four weeks and the agents are guaranteed a commission at the end with great certainty. This is all due to the pressure placed on the vendor, as noted above. Pressure also added by the large marketing fees paid to run the auction campaign.
Now to the nut-and-bolts: Why this article? Why today?
I attended an recent auction in Parramatta. This auction was one promoted by a local, prominent and brand-name agency. What I was witness to will make Fair Trading NSW take special notice.
I will detail the conversations and the agent’s arrogance below. One may also note, his ignorance or even deliberate arrogance in regards to the auction process.
Conversation with the listing agent: words to the effect;
Me: Do you mind telling me the price-guide?
Agent: I can’t disclose the price-guide because the vendor won’t allow me to.
Me: If you can’t disclose the guide, then what is your opinion of value of the property?
Agent: I can’t say as there are no comparable sales in the area. [Keep in mind; this is advertised as two bedroom penthouse unit in Parramatta with a large balcony]
Me: Really, no comparable sales?  Couldn’t you base it on square meters, location and perhaps aesthetic value?
Agent: No! There are no comparable sales and I don’t know what it would sell for. [I heard something similar with respect to well documented auctions at Millers Point…]
Me: In the agency agreement; you must have given the vendor a price-guide, right?
Agent: Yes, we have to [by law].
Me: So, you must, as an agent, be able to form an opinion of the value of the property; I’m not going to hold you to it.
Agent: I don’t have to disclose what I gave to the vendor to you. And besides, there are no comparable sales. If you wanted a price-guide, you should have called me before the auction.
Me: I did call you twice; you told me the new legislation doesn’t allow real estate agents to give price-guides. Why is that?
Agent: It’s against the law and Fair Trading NSW guide lines tells us not to give guides.
Me: Is that so… But you gave the vendor a guide right? Can you show me the agency agreement, or tell me what you wrote on it?
Agent: No, I don’t have to show it to you.
The agent turns away and focuses on other potential, interested and registered bidders.
Buyer: Will the building next to this one, block out the view, when it is completed?
Agent: No it is against the law to block out the views, that’s why they are building it in two sections.
I smiled and shook my head as I walked away in total disbelief of the conversation I just had and the one I overheard. A conversation not dissimilar to the one’s where agents “spruikers” tell investors that they have insurance cover for 7 years, in high-rise apartment blocks. And pigs fly…
The outcome:
There was a crowd of approximately 26 people. The opening bid was $850,000. Subsequently, the property was passed in at $860,000 with only one bidder; whom strangely bid against himself.  
Overhearing the agent’s discussions with both the vendor’s representative and bidder at the time; we found out:
1)     The reserve had been set at $950,000 by the vendor and on the day.
2)     The agent's sale expectations was closer to the $1,000,000 + due to other sales.
3)     The agent also miraculously, appeared to know (had a revelation one might say) what other similar units in the area were being sold for.
Surprise, surprise. It appears the agent did give the vendor an estimated value of the property. One that was a lot higher than what it was passed in at.
For now we are noticing more and more; agents like this one, hide behind their misinterpretation of the FT NSW guide lines and what the guide lines were purposed for.
Furthermore, when more and more buyers are educated to counter the foolish, unethical and illegal tactics used by agents in their auction campaigns; buyers gain the advantage. Agents in turn, place their vendors at a high risk of losing $10’s if not $100’s of thousands of dollars.
Foolishly, both the agent and auctioneer, further allowed the property to be passed in at a low price. A price lower than the reserve. No vendor-bid was given, to help in maintaining a better chance of achieving the desired result, when the sale reverts to a private-treaty sale.
Why did they get a low offer in the first instance? This was all because the agent wanted to draw a crowd. No price-guide is the new under-quoting.
Well, in this auction, the “dumb and dumber” tactics backfired and more will continue to fail like this auction campaign.  Perhaps it’s time vendors made agents more accountable, particularly when they are charged high marketing fees.
Nonetheless, the losers in all this and like many other auctions, are the vendors. The vendor placed his trust in a professional that would guide them on the best method of sale.
The agent failed to both: to provide the best service to the client and present an ethical marketing campaign to engage the consumers (the buyers). Buyers want transparency, not the smoke and mirrors approach adopted by foolish agents.
Not quoting a price guide and going to auction with so many other comparable properties on the market, was a recipe for failure.
The campaign failed: it did however, draw a very large crowd but a crowd that was not willing to play the agent’s game. They could see right through the unethical conduct of the agent.
In this case, I am familiar with the vendors. I know for a fact they would not be bullied by the agent into accepting a lower than anticipated [quoted] price.
Reasons for marketing property by an auction campaign
The main principles for taking property for auction resound so clearly, as I write this article and sip down to the end of my coffee.
1)     Uniqueness (truly no comparable sales).
2)     Motivation:
a.     Forced sale by court order.
b.     Quick and urgent sale for personal reasons.
c.     Time constraint.
3)     Development potential: building or land.
4)     An unfinished project even.
Now there are many more, however, the above is a good beginner’s guide. For the same reasons above, there are also alternate methods of sale and ones that can achieve a better outcome. This is a better outcome in relation to both the price and the way the sales process is handled.
George Rousos: Real estate trainer, course developer and compliance coach at Industry Training Consultants, shares an alternate approach to a public auctions. 
My tip for real estate agents
If in total doubt and a value can’t be determined to be within the guide lines set out by FT NSW; call a licensed valuer. A licensed valuer can assist agents that have issues with forming a realistic price-guide.
Transparency is what buyers are looking for. If some agents believe they can fool buyers; think again. Buyers more than ever, are equipped with tools to help determine price values. In some areas, buyers are also contracting the services of “buyers advocates” to assist them.
However, it must be said that some agents just don’t believe they need, nor want professional help. Some simply feel they are above the law and protected by their real estate office-brand. Some simply run on an overdose of “auction and how to crunch the vendor” seminars.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

No price guide is the new underquoting: Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
Hoskins Maroondah, and estate agency in Melbourne’s east and its director estate agent Brent Peters (pictured above) have been ordered to pay $899,550 by the Federal Court for misleading sales practices.
Between 2015 and 2016 the agency advertised 24 properties for sale at prices  lower than what it believed they would sell for.
These included properties at Croydon, Croydon Hills, Croydon North, Mooroolbark, Park Orchards, Ringwood, Ringwood North, Warranwood and Wonga Park in the city’s east.
The agency made false, misleading and deceptive representations about the sale of land and to have engaged in unconscionable conduct, the court found.
They will have to pay $860,000 in fines, $29,550 in compensation and $10,000 in costs to Consumer Affairs Victoria.
Consumer Affairs Victoria director Sam Jenkin said the order was significant.
He hopes it sent a firm message to agents that the unscrupulous practice would not be tolerated.
"Underquoting is plainly unfair for prospective buyers and, as we've seen with this outcome, it can also be unfair for vendors too," Mr Jenkin said.
The highest penalty handed out in Victoria was in 2017 to <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/79137-toothless-tiger-cav-pinpointed-tim-heavyside-as-involved-in-15-of-fletchers-22-underquoting-contraventions" target="_blank">Tim Heavyside and Fletchers offices which was fined $880,000</a> plus costs for underquoting on 22 properties.
The Federal Court's fine was divided between the Hoskins agency and Mr Peters, with both ordered to pay $430,000 and an extra $5000 in costs each.
Federal Court judge Peter Steward ruled Hoskins Maroondah and director Brent Peters be fined for "unconscionable conduct", including underquoting and then collecting an extra, incentivised commission once properties sold for more than advertised.
Evidence found a board member of the agency noted that the quoted price range was too low and made the business look like "shitty underquotes", Domain reported court documents show.
In one case a Croydon property at 30 Cass Avenue was quoted with a range of $495,000 to $550,000, despite internal estimates averaging $647,000.
The office ran a “Nearest to the Pin” game.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">Public records show it sold for $677,000.</div>
The court documents show the incentive commission was payable at $560,000.
Peters achieved Top 10 salesperson in his first year in real estate in 2001 and was recently named No. 1 salesperson out of a network of 55 offices.
The properties which the court considered were:
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-ringwood-123414738" target="_blank">3 Alma Court, Ringwood</a>  
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+north-120988522" target="_blank">2 Ambon Rise, Croydon North</a> <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+north-120988522" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+hills-119828751" target="_blank">7 Campaspe Drive, Croydon Hills</a> <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+hills-119828751" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-120681709" target="_blank">30 Cass Avenue, Croydon (Cass Avenue Property)</a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-ringwood+north-123417226" target="_blank">48 Crawley Grove, Ringwood North</a> <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-ringwood+north-123417226" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+hills-120988526" target="_blank">6 Drysdale Court, Croydon Hills</a> <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+hills-120988526"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-121259122" target="_blank">12 Glen Avenue, Croydon</a> <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-121259122"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-119828747" target="_blank">6 Hannora Crescent, Croydon </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-119828747" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/%20https:/www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+hills-122410254" target="_blank">3 Henry Smith Place, Croydon Hills</a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-121336710" target="_blank">43 Highland Avenue, Croydon </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-121336710" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-120681717" target="_blank">21 Hyton Crescent, Croydon </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-120681717" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+north-123414742" target="_blank">15 Janson Court, Croydon North </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+north-123414742" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-warranwood-122064570" target="_blank">30 Kelly Court, Warranwood </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-warranwood-122064570" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/%20https:/www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-ringwood-123153254" target="_blank">47 Mundara Drive, Ringwood</a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-mooroolbark-124252706" target="_blank">96 Partridge Way, Mooroolbark </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-mooroolbark-124252706" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-119777635" target="_blank">23 Rodleigh Street, Croydon (Rodleigh Street Property) </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-119777635" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-wonga+park-122905034" target="_blank">14 Roymar Court, Wonga Park </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-wonga+park-122905034" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+hills-122002938" target="_blank">16 Settlers Hill Crescent, Croydon Hills </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+hills-122002938" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/%20https:/www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-123810874" target="_blank">33A Timms Avenue, Croydon</a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-122127258" target="_blank">14 Webster Avenue, Croydon </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon-122127258" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-mooroolbark-124137766" target="_blank">12 Western Way, Mooroolbark </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-mooroolbark-124137766" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/%20https:/www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-park+orchards-121939426" target="_blank">8-12 Williams Road, Park Orchards</a>
<a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+north-122753682" target="_blank">8 Wilton Close, Croydon North </a><a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-croydon+north-122753682" target="_blank"> </a>
<a href="https://www.realestateview.com.au/real-estate/8-valkyrie-crescent-ringwood-vic/property-details-sold-residential-8914212/" target="_blank">8 Valkyrie Crescent, Ringwood </a><a href="https://www.realestateview.com.au/real-estate/8-valkyrie-crescent-ringwood-vic/property-details-sold-residential-8914212/" target="_blank"> </a>
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Hoskins Maroondah and estate agent Brent Peters fined $900,000 for unconscionable underquoting

<html><body>
NSW Fair Trading inspectors have uncovered 102 breaches of the law governing the sale and management of property, during a compliance operation in Sydney’s West.   
A NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Peter Dunphy said inspectors targeted compliance with licensing, completion of continuing professional development, trust account requirements, supervision, underquoting and signage.                   
“Our inspectors canvassed 31 real estate agencies across South West and Western Sydney and issued over 30 penalties totalling almost $40,000,” Mr Dunphy said.     
Fair Trading has conducted 12 compliance operations of real estate agents this year and issued almost $400,000 in fines.   
Agents were fined under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 and Property, Stock and Business Agents Regulation 2014.   
“Inspectors predominantly uncovered non-compliance with the Rules of Conduct, supervision, licensing and record keeping requirements as well as underquoting,” Mr Dunphy said.    
Underquoting occurs when a real estate agent either verbally advises or advertises a property for a price that is less than the estimated selling price in the agency agreement they have with the seller. It is not considered underquoting when a property sells for a price more than what an agent estimated in the selling agency agreement.            
When quoting, agents responsibilities include:
<ul>
<li>Including their reasonable estimate of a property’s likely selling price in the agency agreement and providing evidence to the seller of how the estimate was determined;</li>
<li>Ensuring the highest price in a price range does not exceed the lower price by more than 10%;</li>
<li>Not using any statements such as “offers over” or “offers above” or “plus”.</li>
</ul>
“Fair Trading has conducted 12 compliance operations of real estate agents this year and issued almost $400,000 in fines. Inspectors are also focussed on supporting education and accountability in the industry, issuing warning letters for minor breaches and providing   education and advice to local businesses,” Mr Dunphy said. 
Inspectors are also focussed on supporting education and accountability in the industry, issuing warning letters for minor breaches and providing education and advice to local businesses,” Mr Dunphy said. 
</body></html>

NSW estate agents cop $400,000 fines so far in 2019

<html><body>
Revisions have been made to Victoria’s Statement of Information forms, in a bid by Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) to reduce cases of underquoting.
Underquoting is a sales tactic whereby a property is listed for less than the real-world value to attract greater interest from potential buyers.
Statement of Information forms, in their current form, were introduced in 2017.
The most recent revisions have been introduced to ensure more transparency for potential buyers.
The document requires agents to provide the details of three comparable properties, the median price of the suburb where the sale is taking place, and an estimated selling price calculated through a regulated set of criteria.
It must be displayed at all open for inspections, included with any online advertising, given to prospective buyers within two business days of a request, and updated if there is any change in the indicative selling price.
When selecting the most comparable properties, the agent must take into account the standard and condition of the properties, the location of the properties, the date of sale of the properties.
The estimated price may be represented as a single figure, or a range of up to 10%.
It must reflect the comparable properties, be 'reasonable', and must not be lower than the seller's asking price.
The revisions came into effect on the 16th September, 2019.
They only apply to sales authorities signed on, or after, 1 May 2017. 
</body></html>

wdavis-8cCN98p7xp

Consumer Affairs Victoria rolls out measures to combat underquoting 

<html><body>
A Melbourne buyers agent Mal James says part of the reason Melbourne's clearance rates are so poor was "the inexperienced/lazy agents’ mindset and sellers’ selection of those agents."
"The right agent in this market is the key to the right price quote, which is the key to maximising a vendor’s price and indeed whether they sell or not," he said.
James suggested price quote lowerings were often a "death sign" for getting a decent price on a publicly listed home last year.
"Price drops make some buyers very nervous, as they perceive the market is saying maybe it’s a bad home and shouldn’t be considered," he blogged
"In these more nervous times, this is not a feeling a professional agent should be inflicting on buyers, as their selling clients want all of them.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/subscribe" target="_blank"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/2/Subscriber%20strip%20ad.jpg" alt=""></a>
He suggested as Melbourne had been in a falling market for 18 months that current values should not be a surprise to some agents.
"Why pay a selling agent the big bucks if he/she can’t give you the seller, accurate and forthright advice," he said.
He suggested some agents appear to have been frozen into a quoting regime that was not best for their selling client.
But he stressed he was not suggesting agents “underquote.”
"Underquoting is where the agent “knows” the home is worth more than or “knows” the sellers definitely wouldn’t accept the number he/she puts in the Statement of Information  – it’s illegal and immoral and in our opinion, those agents should be prosecuted as it’s deceptive conduct
"However, where an agent “knows” a home is worth considerably less and allows a high quote to become public and then lowers it a few weeks later, because he or she was not prepared to give the hard truths (professionally) to his or her selling client early, is for us, borderline unethical and definitely unprofessional."
James concluded that all agents are allowed a mistake or two as valuing is not a perfect science.
"It's when you see consistent price quote dropping or pass-ins from the same agents, that you cry unprofessional."
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Melbourne estate agents need to tell sellers the hard truths: Mal James

<html><body>
Estate agents in Sydney’s inner west have been fined for underquoting in breach of the law after being caught in a crackdown by the NSW Department of Fair Trading.
Nineteen unidentified agents in breach of the law were fined for underquoting.
Of the 37 agents visited in the area, 27 were deemed non-compliant, according to a statement from the Minister of Better Regulation Matt Kean who noted more than $66,000 was secured in fines.
Agents were found to be “pitching expected sales prices far below the final value, or failing to provide mandatory written records on the expected price,” Kean said.
The agents targeted for inspection were in the suburbs of Ashfield, Burwood, Canterbury, Croydon Park, Drummoyne, Dulwich Hill, Five Dock, Leichhardt, Marrickville, Newtown, Petersham, Strathfield and Summer Hill.
The government did not name the agencies that were fined.
“The inner west is one of the busiest real estate markets in Sydney right now, with more people wanting to live in the area than ever before,” Kean said.
“I’m really disappointed to hear that some real estate agents are taking advantage of consumers, instead of looking out for their best interests.”
The Department regularly undertakes compliance programs based on a range of factors, including market research, intelligence and complaints data, the spokesperson said. 
Real estate agents on the Northern Beaches had Fair Trade compliance inspections in March, with seven of 17 were fined for underquoting.
Western Sydney agents <a href="https://www.domain.com.au/news/real-estate-agents-in-sydneys-west-fail-nsw-fair-trading-inspection-20180209-h0vuny/" target="_blank">were checked in February,</a> and 18 of the 24 agents inspected were fined for not meeting necessary standards, including underquoting.
</body></html>

Sydney estate agents fined for underquoting 

<html><body>
A new property survey by lender ME reveals 22% of home buyers exceed their spending limit when they purchased their property.
Almost half, some 46% exceeded it by $30,000 or more.
Some 30% exceeded their budget by $50,000 or more.
There were 10% exceeded their budget by $150,000 or more. 
The most common reasons for exceeding their self-imposed limit were:
+ falling in love with the property (52%);
+ underestimating the budget required (28%);
+ impatience (20%);
+ underquoting by an agent (15%);
and getting caught up in a bidding war (12%). 
Some two thirds of those who went over their budget admitted some kind of negative consequence as a result, either financial or emotional.
ME Head of Home Loans, Patrick Nolan, said it was important "to stick to your spending limits.”
He added banks were legally obligated to only lend an amount you can afford to repay over the life of the loan, including at a higher interest rate.
ME’s survey is based on a representative sample of 1,000 Australian property buyers; completed in March 2018.
</body></html>

Underquoting

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Underquoting

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News