The tribunal has since found Tamihana breached the Real Estate Agents Act and that he had not made it clear to Martin that he was acting for a vendor.
"Given the appellant's particular circumstances, the second respondent [Tamihana] failed to give the appellant [Martin] a full and fair explanation of the meaning and implications of the pre-auction offer process," it said.
In 2014, Martin won "a substantial Lotto prize", which "put him in the position of being able to buy a house - something that, as a sickness beneficiary, he had never before contemplated being able to do. He was not familiar with any part of the process of buying a house or the prices paid for houses in Christchurch," the tribunal heard.
Martin knew Tamihana and regarded him as a friend.
He was shown a number of properties and was eventually interested in an Idris Rd place going to auction. He put in a pre-auction offer of $890,000 but then wanted to cancel that. He was not allowed to, bought the property then resold it only five months later for just $765,000.00.
Russell then complained to the Real Estate Agents Authority about being misled about the price of the place, the level of interest in the property, pressure which made him make an offer at too high a price, not being provided with a copy of the pre-auction offer form or booklet and that the people named on the pre-auction offer form were not involved.
The tribunal noted that Russell thought Tamihana - who he had known socially for three to four years and had lunches with - was working in his interests.
"The committee was wrong to decide not to inquire further into the appellant's complaint. His appeal is allowed," the tribunal said. "Having undertaken that inquiry, we find that the licensee and the agency have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct."
