The complainant, who was not named, says that had she been aware of the retaining wall dispute between the unit owners and the neighbour she would not have purchased the unit and would not have incurred the significant legal costs associated with that ongoing dispute.
The committee noted evidence that during early discussions between the vendor and Saunders that she was informed of the ongoing dispute regarding the retaining wall between the four units and their neighbour.
In an email sent in May 2020, the vendor reminded her of a “couple of refreshers” which included jogging her memory about the wall fight.
Two of the three matters were listed as the retaining wall: “Our neighbour has insisted for a long time that the retaining wall between the two properties needs work,” the vendor wrote to Saunders.
That vendor then told her that the unit owners had engaged lawyers and obtained a legal opinion on the issue.
In fact, the vendor went as far as to question whether the sale of the unit should be put on hold “given the ongoing dispute”.
In her defence, Saunders said that based on the email from the unit owner’s lawyer which was forwarded to her, she understood the dispute between the unit owners and their neighbour was limited to the neighbour seeking permission to access the retaining wall for inspection via the property.
“She states she did not know the purpose of the request to access was for the preparation of a new engineering report commissioned by the neighbour. Ms Saunders states she did not disclose the commission of the second report to the complainant because she was not aware of it,” the committee’s decision said.
But that committee also found the vendor did advise her of a dispute between the unit owner and their neighbour and that it had been in existence “for a long time”.
Therefore, she was on notice that a dispute existed, it said.
Having been made aware of that, it would have been prudent for her to seek more information so that details of the dispute could be disclosed to any and all prospective buyers, the committee’s decision said.
In a separate penalty decision, the committee said: “It is important that a message of deterrence is sent to all licensees, which a fine in the mid-range of available penalties will achieve.”
Four orders were made against Saunders:
- An order censuring or reprimanding her;
- An order that she apologises to the complainant;
- An order for her to pay to the Real Estate Authority a $3000 fine;
- The unsatisfactory conduct involved more than a minor or technical breach of the act and rules and therefore, the committee also made an order referring the case to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal for that entity to consider whether to make a compensation order.
Asked by the Herald if she wished to comment on the decisions and ruling, Saunders declined.
Natalie Small and Fale Lesa heard the case with Biddington.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 24 years, has won many awards, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.