Real estate agent rents house to friend at discounted rate

The homeowners complained about the real estate agent's actions. Photo / Thinkstock

A real estate agent rented a house to a colleague at a discounted rate and paid the difference so he could use its garage for storage - without the owners' knowledge.

Property manager Christopher Wright told the homeowner clients that he'd found a couple with an adult son willing to rent their New Plymouth property for $460 a week.

But in fact, the tenants were two adults and three children - and people he knew.

He charged them $350 per week, while paying the remaining $110 per week rent himself so he could use the property's garage as storage.

In exchange, he agreed with the renters that he would keep the property and its hedges in order.

When the homeowners found out about the bizarre situation, they complained to the industry watchdog.

The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal's complaints assessment committee charged Wright with two counts of misconduct.

Allegations of "disgraceful conduct" included that he misled landlord clients about who would be occupying their property and that he was renting the garage.

He was also accused of producing retrospective rental statements and misleading the committee over rental records.

Wright was further accused of having a "cavalier attitude to his obligations" as a real estate agent.

But Wright denied any wrongdoing.

"I am at a loss to understand what disadvantage financial or otherwise the landlord has suffered due to my actions," he told the tribunal.

The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal concluded that while Wright's actions were "concerning and unsatisfactory", it fell short of misconduct.

While the charges were dismissed, the tribunal asked Wright to undergo an appropriate educational course "explaining the principles of ethics applying to real estate practice".

"If we had jurisdiction we would order that educational course, but because the defendant's concerning conduct is not real estate work, we have no jurisdiction to find, or penalise for, unsatisfactory conduct," it concluded.