Buyer vacuuming house before settlement, agent found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct

A real estate agent was found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct after he gave a buyer the keys to a house before the contract had settled and the vendors found that buyer inside, vacuuming their house.

Agent Kirndip Parmar acknowledged his mistake, which he said was made as a result of him having Covid, but the vendors said they were “in a state of shock” when they discovered the buyer inside the house vacuuming.

In May, a complaints assessment committee of the Real Estate Authority found him guilty and ordered him to refund $3000 in commission fees and fined him $1500.

But the self-represented agent appealed that to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, asking it to overturn the financial penalty although not the censure.

Vendors arrived to find the people they were selling the house to, already inside using a vacuum cleaner.

A decision, last updated on December 4, described the background but did not say who the agent worked for, where the house is or who the vendors are.

In September 2022, the vendors signed an agency agreement for the sale of their property.

“On the morning of settlement of the property, KB and LB arrived at the property and found the purchaser already at the property, inside vacuuming. It is not disputed that Mr Parmar gave the keys to the property to the purchaser the day before settlement without KB and LB’s permission. The purchaser had in fact requested early access to the property prior to settlement but their request had been denied by KB and LB,” the decision said.

The committee decision said the vendors arrived at the property and were shocked to find the buyer there vacuuming.

They said that it was a huge worry in the following hours until their lawyer confirmed the money had been paid just after midday and it could have compromised safety or uncovered insurance issues.

They said it was a promise of the agency to keep the house safe, including keeping the keys safe, only allowing entry of an authorised agent and only releasing the keys to the buyer when their lawyer confirmed that the sale money had been received.

To hand over their keys a day early was a huge breach of trust and contract yet Parmar had brushed off their concerns when they raised the issue with him.

There was no dispute that Parmar had given the keys to the buyer a day early, the committee said.

He then filed a notice of appeal to the tribunal against the sums he was then ordered to pay, saying:

• The penalty imposed by the committee was excessive and disproportionate to the offence;
• He cooperated fully with the committee and admitted his error from the outset;
• The settlement of the property was completed successfully and without any issues or delays;
• He has suffered significant trauma, anxiety and health issues as a result of his mistake and the subsequent disciplinary action;
• The financial penalty would have a devastating impact on his family.

He attached to his notice of appeal a sales advice sheet which set out the amount of his commission for the sale, which the tribunal said was new evidence.

It was not before the committee when it dealt with the complaint and he did not file an application to submit the new evidence, the tribunal said.

He requested that the tribunal take into account that this was his first offence and as a self-represented layperson he is not familiar with the evidentiary requirements relating to supporting documentation.

The vendors also filed submissions supporting the committee’s penalty submissions. They referred to the stress they suffered when they found the purchaser in the house on the morning of the settlement and that they were in “a state of shock”. They submitted that Parmar only apologised once the disciplinary process was underway. They submitted that the penalty imposed by the committee was appropriate and should not be altered.

The tribunal halved the $3000 refund he was ordered to pay to the vendors to $1500.

“The penalty order as to the refund of commission made by the committee in its penalty decision is quashed and replaced with an order that Mr Parmar refund to the second respondents the sum of $1500 from his commission share to be paid to the second respondents,” the tribunal ordered, referring to the house vendors.

The tribunal said in making that decision, it took into account that Parmar had no previous disciplinary history and had cooperated with the authority.

But it saw no need to alter the $1500 fine he was ordered to pay.

It retained suppression of the names of the house vendors.

“In light of the outcome of this appeal, and having regard to the interests of the public in the transparency of the tribunal and knowing of wrongdoing by the licensee, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision without identifying the second respondents and the agency, but naming the appellant,” the tribunal concluded.

Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 24 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.