In a decision released this week, the tribunal also dismissed the couple’s complaint and found the realtor had done nothing wrong.
At the time of writing the Wilsons had not responded to a request through the authority for comment and Harcourts said it was company policy not to comment on tribunal findings.
The complaint
In December 2021 the Wilsons were interested in buying a property in Northland where the only water supply was a “gentleman’s agreement” to draw water from a neighbouring property’s spring.
They visited the property where Harcourts agent Esmae Farrington requested they wear masks and asked if they were vaccinated because she would be taking them to the property in her own vehicle.
After seeing the property the Wilsons emailed Farrington and said they were “very interested” but had further questions about the water supply.
In the same email they said the agent was wrong for asking about their vaccination status and inquired about why two other viewers at the property hadn’t been asked to wear masks.
Farrington said the other viewers had worn masks initially but removed them once inside despite being asked to put them back on.
Multiple emails went back and forth with the couple repeatedly asking about the Harcourts Covid-19 policy as well as the agent’s own stance, and wanting to know why they had been discriminated against by being made to wear masks.
In those same emails, the couple continued to inquire about the status of the water agreement as well as indicating they were serious buyers and could put forward an unconditional cash offer, but did not specifically name a price.
The owners responded through Farrington saying they had never had any issues with the gentleman’s agreement and wouldn’t answer any further questions about water supply.
By December 8 the couple found the property was no longer listed and contacted Farrington claiming they had a right to be informed about any other offer so they would have an opportunity to counter it.
Her manager, Thomas Rutherford, took over contact, explaining the property owners were presented with all options and had accepted another offer.
The Wilsons said the agent acted in bad faith by not telling them about the other offer and had been antagonistic toward them, claiming she treated them like “vermin”.
The Wilsons then contacted the property owners directly and introduced themselves as prospective buyers. The vendors didn’t reply and forwarded the couple’s email back to the agent.
The Wilsons took a complaint to the Real Estate Agents Authority on the basis Farrington had failed to inform them, as serious prospective buyers, of an offer made on the property and thus they had no opportunity to make an unconditional cash counter-offer.
They also said the agent treated them with contempt, demanded to know their vaccine status and, when informed, she acted as if they were “vermin”.
When contacted by the authority the property owners said they simply went with another buyer who had no issues with the gentleman’s agreement.
They said Farrington had kept them up to date with all the offers including the Wilsons’.
Tribunal finding
The authority found the agent told the sellers about the couple’s offer and complied with the government’s Covid-19 policies.
The registrar dismissed the complaint but the Wilsons appealed it to the tribunal arguing the authority had not dealt with the central issue and “elephant in the room”.
This was that Farrington had not informed them another offer had been made and that she had taken consistent and deliberate steps to ensure another buyer was able to purchase the property instead of them.
The authority defended its decision and said the couple’s complaint was “inconsequential” and didn’t raise any new points to warrant a reinvestigation.
The tribunal upheld the authority’s ruling and said it had not failed to properly investigate the complaint and there was no breach of the rules by Farrington.
“The crux of the complaint, as identified by the applicants, is that the licensee intentionally failed to notify them of an offer.
“Had they known, they say they would have realised time was of the essence and made an unconditional cash offer,” the decision read.
The registrar’s lawyer said the couple wasn’t actually entitled to know about the other offer.
“The vendors, who have made no complaint, were made aware of the applicants and of their interest,” the tribunal said.
“It is self-evident they could have required the licensee to inform the applicants of the offer and invite their best offer. They chose not to because they were happy to deal exclusively with the offeror.
“In effect, it was the vendors who chose not to inform the applicants of the offer, not the licensee.”
The tribunal said it was unsurprising the property owners chose to work with customers who didn’t have an issue with the water supply and were happy to take the house as is.
On the claims of unfair treatment, the tribunal noted the house viewing happened two days after the Government’s Covid protection framework came into place.
“The registrar found that the licensee was able to ask open home attendees, let alone those in her own car, to wear a face mask,” the tribunal said.
Her request that the couple wear masks did not justify a disciplinary response, it said.
The tribunal found the Wilsons provided no details about how they were treated like “vermin” and Farrington’s written communications did not portray any antagonism.
Overall, it found the couple had not proven the authority was wrong and had not shown any breach of the rules by Farrington, nor by Harcourts.
