Case against Martin Cooper follows ruling against ex-Harcourts agent

Martin Cooper of Harcourts Cooper & Co is unhappy about the ex-agent's comments.

• Martin Cooper’s disciplinary hearing in Auckland follows a misconduct ruling against former Harcourts agent Peter Tromp.
• Cooper and his agency were charged with misconduct for failing to provide requested information to the Real Estate Authority.
• Cooper admitted to mistakes due to overwhelming circumstances. The tribunal reserved its decision after the hearing.

A Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal hearing against North Shore real estate boss Martin Cooper follows an earlier misconduct ruling against an agent who once worked for the Harcourts Cooper & Co chain.

The case heard in Auckland on Tuesday against the high-profile Cooper as well as Harcourts Cooper & Co Real Estate cited ex-Harcourts agent Peter Tromp De Haas, who was fined $3000 last year.

The hearing, where Cooper took the stand, heard about a former Harcourts agent only referred to as Peter Tromp without De Haas being mentioned.

But a ruling last year against Tromp said he had worked for Cooper & Co Real Estate trading as Harcourts Cooper & Co.

In the case before the tribunal on Tuesday, Cooper and the company were charged with misconduct under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, “in that their conduct constitutes a wilful or reckless contravention of the act”, according to the charge sheet.

Cooper spoke of difficulties locating documents due to the pandemic but also referred to one Harcourts branch, which had been shut.

Last year’s ruling against Tromp also referred to an agency branch being closed — the one where Tromp worked on the Shore.

According to that complaints assessment committee ruling out last June, two complainants took a case against Tromp to the Real Estate Authority.

That was over Tromp buying an unidentified property where he was also a sales agent.

Martin Cooper appeared before the tribunal yesterday.

He bought the property and later onsold that same property to the complainants for what they said was a $225,000 profit, the complainants alleged.

The complainants were upset the Harcourts sales agent had bought the property and that they had to pay him that extra amount to buy it.

So they asked Harcourts for $225,000 compensation for their loss.

Originally, the complainants had offered $900,000 for the property.

Tromp bought it for $900,000, then on-sold the property to them, via another agency, for $1.125m in November 2019. The case said he was “unaware that the purchaser was the complainants as he had never had any dealings with them”.

The deal was settled in February 2020.

The complainants said Tromp was aware they were negotiating an agreement to buy and used the knowledge of their negotiations to buy the property ahead of them.

Tromp said “he did not place himself in a conflict of interest position because he was informed that the previous offers had been rejected by the vendor, including the complainants who were not his client”.

Tromp also said he had acted in good faith and fairly with all parties and the vendor had been his priority. However after many months on the market the vendor had lowered the price so he had bought it. Tromp denied he used his position to make a profit. He said he acted honestly and has a respected reputation in the industry.

The committee looked into whether Tromp had placed himself in a conflict of interest position and decided he did not take appropriate steps to properly manage conflict of interest concerns.

It convicted him of unsatisfactory conduct.

Last November, he was fined $3000, that penalty decision saying “unsatisfactory conduct findings were made against Mr Tromp de Haas in respect of his obligation owed to the vendor, specifically with regards to management of conflict of interest”.

He did not act in the vendor’s best interests, the decision said.

“The findings made could warrant a fine of more than $3000 however, in setting the fine at this level the committee has taken into account the lack of prior disciplinary findings against Mr Tromp de Haas,” the November 2023 decision said.

Contacted by the Herald yesterday, Tromp said he no longer worked in real estate and had not for some years. He was not “interested in rekindling the whole episode. They dealt with me harshly,” he said of the authority.

”They wanted a fall guy to make it look like they were doing their job. It’s all over and done with.”

Told matters were unfinished because Cooper and the agency were now before the tribunal he said: “It’s nothing to do with me. I’ve had enough.”

Tuesday’s case against Martin Cooper and the business was before Catherine Sandelin, Neil O’Connor and Fiona Mathieson, the tribunal members who heard the case.

Cooper and the agency had received a request for information from Real Estate Authority investigator Rangi Callahan who sought it in September and November 2021 and January and March 2022.

“Despite the requests, Cooper and the agency failed to provide the authority with the requested information,” the charge sheet said.

Neither Cooper nor the agency responded to a notice in May 2022 about the need to comply with the request for information.

So by June of that year, Callahan advised Cooper and the agency via email that a complaints assessment committee had been informed of their failure to comply with the notice.

“To date, Cooper and/or the agency have still not provided to the authority the information sought in the notice,” the charge sheet issued by complaints assessment committee chairwoman Denise Evans said.

In his defence, Cooper said: “My priorities were the wellbeing of my staff and customers. This case didn’t get elevated to the top. I accept it should have. I accept I made a mistake. I don’t believe it was a conscious decision. I was overwhelmed. I had 407 staff. If a vendor pays $5000 to market their property and they call up screaming ‘What’s going on, I want my money back!’ Accidents happen. Mistakes are made. It was not a conscious decision. It was an oversight and a major one. As we sit here today, I can see the consequences of it.”

Those included closing a branch, “guys being retired”, a relief manager having retired, documents being transferred into storage and a manager who was managing an agent being out of New Zealand.

“It was difficult to get the information. I didn’t place importance on this issue. I thought I had dealt with this issue. I just had so many balls in the air. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I was not efficient enough in my administration of this claim. We have had many many claims that had to be dealt with. There were extenuating circumstances of lockdowns, dramas, unprecedented times,” Cooper said.

He made a mistake by not realising the importance of the documents being sought, he said.

“It’s sort of embarrassing. Should I have known? Yes, I should have.”

But times were so unusual, he said referring to the pandemic, and he told of “people crying, staff having no income and trying to sort out wage subsidies”.

After Tuesday’s hearing, the tribunal reserved its decision. A written decision is likely in the next few weeks.

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