Complaints were made against the agent and an unsatisfactory conduct ruling was made. Photo / 123RF
A real estate agent has been censured and fined $1000 for comments he made about what a property could be used for, but the decision against him is being appealed.
Three people went to the
Real Estate Authority, which formed a complaints assessment committee that found against the agent.
They complained about what they said Ben Nottingham told them about the use of a property.
The authority’s public register shows Nottingham is an agent in Tauranga and registered until January, 2025.
One of the complainants told the authority he intended to operate his auto dismantling/vehicle parts business from the property Nottingham sold, but after moving there, the local authority said his business could not be run there.
Use and development of the property were non-complying activities, the complainant was told.
The complainants said they were made to understand by Nottingham that the property could be used for industrial purposes.
Nottingham knew how they intended to use the property but failed to tell them about the restrictions, they complained.
The committee found Nottingham had breached rules because he did not go far enough to explain to the complainants expert advice was required.
That expert advice was needed so the complainants could ascertain if their proposed use of the property was possible, the ruling said.
In his defence, Nottingham said he was aware of the restrictions on the development of properties within the business park.
Nottingham also had no prior disciplinary history.
His lawyer said he did not make positive representations about the property that were misleading, and there was no attempt to deliberately conceal the industrial restrictions.
The committee was also told Nottingham’s conduct was is in the low range of unsatisfactory conduct and an appropriate penalty would be a censure alone.
Industrial zoning
One property there did have industrial zoning but full development was not permitted until 50 per cent of the titles in the first stage of the business park had been sold, the committee was told.
Nottingham said he’d previously sold land that was in the fourth stage of the business park and had researched the business park and the designation of the land as part of that listing.
A delayed settlement term on that sale reflected the fact development could not occur for at least two years, he said.
When he was marketing the property, the business park developer contacted Nottingham and also confirmed to him the restrictions on development, the decision said.
The committee was therefore satisfied Nottingham was aware of the industrial restrictions when he marketed the property for sale.
The decision said the unsatisfactory conduct ruling was under appeal.
The committee’s chairman was Paul Biddington, the deputy chairwoman was Natalie Small and Fale Lesa served as a panel member.
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.