The Trouble With Poo

All of us are confronted with it!  If we are healthy, we are normally confronted with it on a daily basis.  Poo is something which we must do, but is something we do not wish to encounter.

Serious reflux and blocked toilets which interfere with a person’s need to poo, is an emerging issue.  In actual fact, it has been an emerging issue for some period of time. 

The CTTT was recently forced to hear the case of Grants Strata Management v Murdaca wherein it had to deal with a problem of access into a unit.

Ironically, unit 2 had problems because of a toilet blockage.  It appeared that the toilet blockage was created from within the realms of unit 1.

The strata manager, believing that it was normally common property, attempted to resolve the issue.  They contacted unit 1 with no success.  The tenant of unit 1 would not provide them with access to check it out.  Unfortunately, Grants were unsuccessful at the CTTT.  The CTTT ruled that a strata manager does not have standing at the tribunal for lot disputes.  ‘Standing’ in lay persons’ terms, within this context, means that a strata manager cannot take action where it is a dispute between lot owners.

For a strata manager to take action, the CTTT indicated that four things must be available:

• There must be evidence that the strata manager has been appointed by the owners corporation to attend on their behalf.   This should be provided merely showing the strata plan and producing the managing agency agreement.
• There must be evidence that the problem is emerging from common property.
• There must be an expert opinion that shows that it is a blockage in the common property.
• Evidence must be produced that access was refused.

The problem with this case is that the owners corporation would never be able to obtain evidence that it was a common property issue.  To prove that it was common property and thereby an owners corporation issue they needed access. So without access they had no evidence.  In these circumstances, the owner of lot 2 should have taken action against lot 1 for failure to provide access so that proper repairs could be undertaken.

If you think this is a problem, think of a vision impaired mate of mine.  He arose one morning to find that his toilet had suffered reflux.  This guy was totally blind.  How he determined that it was reflux is not by the normal means.  Unfortunately, he stepped in it.  He then checked with his fingers to identify what his foot had found, and confirmed it with the only facility he had available – smell.

I must admit, I immensely enjoyed being advised of this story.  Nevertheless, his unit was re-carpeted, re-tiled and the owners corporation was required to pay for his accommodation for 6 weeks.  I think he still believes, however, that this is minor compensation for his encounter with poo.

Truth Time!

From time to time, Leverage returns to provide advice in relation to franchise law.  We specifically do this in relation to real estate because of the number of real estate agents in franchise arrangements.

The Trade Practices (Franchise Industry Code) Regulation 1998 requires every franchise to produce a disclosure document for the year ending 30 June.  This must be published prior to 31 October of that year.  This means that truth time is nigh for franchisors.  They are not required to issue it to all franchisees; however franchisees can obtain it upon request.

The franchise disclosure document should outline:

• A background to the franchise agreement;
• A summary of the history of the franchise;
• Identification of who are franchisees;
• An outline of the terms in the franchise agreement; and
• An outline of the economic fabric of the franchise.

It is not normally edifying or exciting reading.  Nevertheless, if you want to know something about your franchise, you should ask for the disclosure document:  if nothing else, just to annoy them.

There are a number of cases which have affected franchises in recent times.  The Australian Consumers and Competition Commission (ACCC) has recently ruled that a fourteen day compliance clause in a franchise agreement as unfair.  In the matter of Scotty’s Premium Pet Foods P/L the ACCC ruled that, in the case of a breach, it was unfair for a franchise agreement to have a clause which empowered the franchisor to issue a notice upon the franchisee stating that they had fourteen days to comply with the agreement. In this particular matter, the ACCC considered that this time frame was unreasonable and that the notices did not sufficiently describe the alleged breaches or the remedy required.

In other words, the standard clause, whereby a franchisee is threatened with termination if any breaches have not been remedied within fourteen days, has been determined by the ACCC as void. In Scotty’s Premium Pet Foods P/L, the franchisor wasn’t prosecuted, but the company provided court enforceable undertakings to prevent the conduct from recurring.

If you get such a notice, you can tell your franchisor that it is unfair and that you need more time to resolve the problem.  This will force them to reissue the notice to defend any termination in the future.

Remember, you pay your franchisors – they don’t pay you.

It’s All About People

Since the inception of the Strata Titles Act 1959-61, the laws relating to strata living and community living have been under review.  Between 1973 and 1996, the legislation was amended no less than 40 times. New statutes were introduced in 1973 and in 1996 to resolve perceived problems. Since 1996, 3 reviews have been undertaken with 2 major overhauls. Unfortunately, the problems still remain.

For 50 years now, the legislature has been attempting to come to grips with the problems associated with community living. The latest amendments in 1996 set two clear objectives:
• The creation of a system of management; and
• The establishment of a scheme for resolving disputes.

Like the rest of the Act, these objectives are logical. They essentially go to the issues of peace and good order. Goals which we would all like to achieve in our own household.

Parliament has believed that if you establish a set of rules or guidelines, it will prevent chaos and allow parties to live together in some harmony. The question is  – can the laws do this alone?

I have sometimes referred to strata title as nothing more than a “sophisticated hippie colony”.  The only thing I forget is that those that wanted to live in a hippie colony, usually come together with some common goals in mind.

Strata schemes however bring together people from different socioeconomic groups, different ethnicity and different political and social views. It is an unrealistic goal of anyone, let alone the government, to expect that peace and good order can be achieved simply by creating laws when you put an non-homogenous group together in a single civilized polis.

The apartment in a strata complex is merely someone’s home or their investment. In the main part, it is people’s homes. We often do not achieve peace and good order in our own homes, so therefore the issue of obtaining peace and good order in a strata complex with this cobbled together group is impossible merely by creating laws.

Nevertheless, corporations and organisations down the ages have found ways of bringing together different people with different talent and different views to reach a common goal. The objectives of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1986 is a common goal that we all would like to achieve. Those who live in a strata complex do have common goals apart from good peace and harmony:
• They want to advance the value of their assets;
• They want to live comfortably; and
• They want to live without chaos.

These common goals may be used as a spring board to allow common principles to change. Presently, the reaction to strata is a legal one and one which relates to the standards imposed by the statutes and the courts. Maybe we should consider what can be done with people by establishing a centralised vision with a core set of values. Maybe those of us involved with strata should consider the human resource principles applied in successful corporations as a tool for creating a functioning civilised polis.

The best companies in the world have been based on people’s solutions not economic, political or legal solutions. Even Bill Gates had a people solution to his IT empire. He understood that people would want computers on their desks at home whilst many considered it as an unrealistic dream. He understood people and assisted people to get what they wanted. A lesson which may be overtaken into strata.

Gladly Wrong…..
I would like to say that I have received extensive amounts of mail relating to my comments about licensing in the Strata industry. Unfortunately, in actuality we really only received three responses to my claim that I had heard that the Institute of Strata Title Management may have a view that strata managers should not be licensed. I should note that this is not based on my view of the world. I was advised and did see documentation that would indicate that this view may be held by some persons within the Institute.

David Ferguson was the response that I was most happy to receive. David sent me an email and we did have a conversation.  David advised that the Institute is committed to licensing in the Strata Management industry. He supported the latest newsletters of the Institute which noted that the Institute has made submissions to the Office of Fair Trading to restrain strata licensing.  What was most refreshing was that he is going to continue the fight when national licensing is introduced next year to have strata management licences retained at least in New South Wales.

It appears that my information was somewhat misleading. For that I gladly admit that I was wrong. If this has sparked a ground swell of support for licensing in New South Wales and maybe in Australia, my heart is further gladdened.

If any one has any comment on the content of these newsletters, I refer you to our blog at http://leverageaustralia.wordpress.com/ which is an opportunity for feedback and to allow the industry to communicate fully and frankly about the issues raised in these newsletters. We are always happy to be proven wrong or to encourage debate regarding important issues.

Effective Cause of Sale

The most asked question of Leverage Australia is about the concept of “effective cause of sale”.  This is a problem which has emerged in the “exclusive agency agreement” period.  This problem is not an issue in jurisdiction around the world where a multi listing service exists.

Many blame the Office of Fair Trading for the concept of “effective cause of sale”.  Although I enjoy blaming the Office of Fair Trading for anything, they cannot be credited for this blight on the industry.  It is a problem which has been created by the standard real estate industry “exclusive agency agreement”.  The problem emerged because under the concept of exclusivity, an agency only has a period of time in which to sell the property.  Once listed, an agency will show the property to a number of prospective buyers.  If it is a market where property does not move quickly, like the present, another agent will be given the opportunity to sell the property.  From 2006 to 2008, it became better to be the second agent due to the property being marketed by the first agent.  The person who looks at it with the first agent then looks again with the second agent, and consequently buys the property.  The problem was, who actually did the work to secure the sale.

We have been unable to identify who started the concept, however it appears that the Real Estate Institute agency agreement stated that an agent was entitled to a fee where they were “the effective cause of sale”.  This has become a trend in all agency agreements across the property sector. If you want to know how deep the history is in relation to this problem, one of the first Supreme Court cases was the case of Adams in 1977.

We ask continuously: what is the effective cause of sale?  One of the leading cases in the area is aptly named Moneywood.

Essentially, what the cases state, is that there must be a substantive link between what the agent is engaged to do and what actually occurs.  In relation to sales, the standard agency agreement states that the agent is appointed to “sell” the property.  Hence, there must be causal link between the agent’s actions and the subsequent sale.  It is clear in the Moneywood case that mere introduction is not enough.  In only introducing a purchaser and nothing more, an agent has simply acted as a “home host,” not a negotiating agent.  Therefore, if the circumstances of the ultimate transaction can be linked to the steps taken by the first agent, the intervention of the second agent won’t matter.

Ironically, it is not about the final price.  In the Moneywood case, the agent secured the property under an option at a particular price.  After the exchange of the contract, circumstances arose whereby the contract was changed and the price was altered.  The courts deemed that this did not alter the fact that the agent’s work brought about the sale.

It is, however, a difficult concept to exercise.  If an agent asked themselves whether they have done everything that would have affected the sale, and they can answer “yes,” then they are the “effective cause of sale”.  On the other hand, however, if the agent knows that the second agent has also done things that have resulted in the sale, the first agent has not been the effective cause of sale.  For example, if negotiations have been undertaken via the first agent, and no sale was perpetrated, and the second agent was able to acquire a sale on a higher price because of their strategies, it is the second agent that is entitled to the fee, even if the first agent was the one to introduce the purchaser.

In reality, both agents have probably caused the sale.  I have never seen a case where there is a clear cut distinction between the first and the second agent in relation to the sale.  Personally, I believe the concept of “effective cause of sale” is a blight upon the property industry, pitting good agent against good agent.

If you want to protect your commission because you believe you are the “effective cause of sale”, you must have good paperwork.  You must be able to indicate what you have been instructed to do, what you did and how it related to the sale.  This causal link of events is essential to winning any case on “effective cause of sale”.

Please note that although the Property, Stock and Business Agents Regulation 2003 require a warning to be enclosed on agency agreements that a vendor may have to pay two commissions, it is rare that the court will make two agents the victor.  The courts or tribunals will always look to find out who is the “effective cause of sale”.  We must also point out that, in our opinion, the second agent holds the upper hand.  The second agent has to almost only roll into town at a critical point and affect the sale.  If they have done anything to cause the sale, they will generally be the winner.

We expect to return to this topic over the coming weeks because it is one of the largest arguments in this industry.

 Restoration of Licenses

Leverage News readers have two for one today.  This is because a change has happened to the industry that was almost squeezed in by the Office of Fair Trading unnoticed.  Actually, it has been squeezed in with no notice.

From 19 June 2009, the education requirements for obtaining a licence have altered.  One of the things that was not noticed, is that it has also altered for those people that let their licence lapse.

The Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (PSBAA) provides a grace period for any agent.  Licences are meant to be renewed on the date of their anniversary, but many agents fail to lodge on time.  The PSBAA states that a licence will be reinstated as if it never lapsed provided the renewal of the licence was lodged within three (3) calendar months of the lapsing of the licence.  This protects agency agreements and all legal functions of the agency.

Once 3 months has passed, a new application must be lodged for a licence.  This means that an agent needs to prove that they have the right qualifications for the brand new licence.  Provided you have done the most recent courses, you will be granted your licence.  If you have done the now out-dated PRD01 course which lapsed on 31 May 2009, you will only be given a grace period of 12 months.  If you have done the new CPP07 courses which were introduced on 19 June 2009, you have a grace period of 3 years.  If it is 12 months since you have done the PRD –based course, you will need to do your courses again.

We recently had a person ring our office that had been in the industry for 22 years.  He let his licence lapse while he was overseas in 2007.  He now has to do the courses again.

ACP and Leverage offer a service whereby assistance is given to old licensees to obtain their licence without having to sit through a long régime of courses.  If they have done an old course and have been in the industry for a period of time, ACP can recognise prior learning and/or experience in assessing these long term agents, and if successful, can grant them their qualifications.

If you are intending to go overseas, or you’re thinking about leaving the industry for a small period of time, we suggest that all your qualifications be updated to the new CPP07 series.  This will provide you with a 3 year grace period and the new Certificate IV in Property Services qualification.  The alternative is, don’t let your licence lapse.  File your renewal on time, do your CPD and file all audit returns.
                                                        
Until next time,

Bailey Compton and the team at       
Leverage Australia &
Australian College of Professionals

 

Proxy’s Outlawed

Are developers, the original owners of strata schemes, control freaks?  “computer says, yes!”  For those who are not with it, this is a twist on the humour from the American Comedy Series Little Britain.

The computer is right however!  Developers do want to control the destiny.  Throughout the ages, they have done this through a range of special conditions placed in contracts for the sale of land, limited powers of attorney and most recently through the use of proxy’s.

When selling off the plan, the vendor’s solicitor traditionally produced a contract requiring  the purchaser to give a proxy to the developer.  This proxy usually goes until all the units are sold and means that the developer holds the power at the first annual general meeting.  This allows them to set levies, appoint caretakers (who they profit from), establish contractual regimes with ongoing benefits to the developer, and in some cases to prevent the repairs of defects.

This was outlawed in 2008, when the government changed the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 to insert Clause 11 (7AA) of Schedule 2.  This prevents the use of a proxy which has been obtained through a special clause in a contract or any contract ancillary to the contract for the sale of land.

You would have thought this would have stopped the developers.  We have recently seen a contract produced by a large law firm in Sydney, who claim to represent developers, produce the special condition with an attached proxy.  The agent was left in a position of having to argue with the purchaser regarding the use of this proxy form.  In actual fact, the agent who was acting for the vendor, was placed in an invidious position of explaining the benefits of the proxy to the purchaser.

This placed the agent in a position of acting in a misleading manner.  More importantly, it puts them in breach of their rules of conduct which require them not to misrepresent in relation to the law.

Leverage has been able to resolve the issue with the client and the vendor.  We actually advised the vendor of his obligation under the Act and suggested that he may need to talk to all his purchasers regarding these requirements.

Remember, if they is a proxy included in the contract for the sale of land, ignore it and refer the purchaser to their solicitor to deal with the issue.  If the vendor pushes you to argue its benefit, you are not required to follow those instructions.

The Root of Agencies

Section 55 of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 expressly states that a Strata Managing Agent is not entitled to their commission unless the requirements of the Act and Regulations are met.  One of the important requirements is that the principal, that is, the strata plan, signs the agreement.  Many think that if the signature is on the agency agreement/delegations, that’s all that matters.  The recent case of Owners Corporation Strata Plan 10646 versus Linforth should change everyones viewpoint.

In Linforth’s case, an EGM was called to vote on special privilege by-laws.  The owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 cleverly were advised not to turn up to the meeting and those by-laws cannot be passed.  Wanting to disrupt the meeting, the owner of 1 and 2 did not attend the meeting.   As such, the meeting did not have a corum.   The owners of Lots 3 and 4 pushed through the special by-laws and they were then actually approved.  The by-laws favoured no one person in particular.  They were fair and equitable and Lots 3 and 4 felt they were able to push it through because Lots 1 and 2 had deliberately upset the meeting.

The case went to the CTTT.  The CTTT overturned all resolutions because the correct procedures were not followed.

I don’t mention this case for the purpose of talking about special privilege by-laws.  I talk about it for the purposes of actions that are put in place at an EGM.  The Member in the CTTT was very clear that procedures should always be taken over the concept of fairness or appropriateness.  As stated in the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996, clearly set out procedures are to be applied to ensure that a decision is made.  The member stated that:

• There are procedures in relation to calling a meeting;
• There are procedures in place regarding holding meetings; and
• There are procedures in place regarding voting.

If you consider the fact that the failure to have a corum was not an inhibition to have the motions passed.  They only needed to wait half an hour to put the meeting off for a week.  If there were no corum at the subsequent meeting, the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 permits the second meeting to go ahead and the resolutions to stand.

This made me think about agency agreements.  If the notices for the annual general meeting were not proper, and if the meeting was not held in accordance with the procedures, does the motion in relation to the strata manager affect the signing of the agency agreement.  On the basis of Linforth’s case, it clearly does.  If the meeting is not called properly or held in accordance with the rules, the motion to appoint the strata managing agency can be set aside.  If that motion is set aside, the agency agreement is therefore void.

Be careful when you are being appointed as the strata managing agent.  Make certain the root of the agency agreement is traced back to the notifications which are given for the AGM.  Moreover, make certain the resolutions are in accordance with the rules set out in the Act.

You do not want to have a good agency agreement if the procedures which you applied to get to the agency agreement are faulty.

Who Warrants Insurance – No One

The recent case of The Owners Corporation SP69352 versus Vero Insurance Ltd (Home Building) [2009] has brought home to everyone in the building industry about the limitations associated with insurance.

In this case, it was a Strata Plan with 201 lots.  The builder had taken out the home owners warranty insurance as required by the Home Building Act 1989.  Defects with the building emerged and the builder was not available to fix the repairs.  A claim was made on the home owners warranty insurance policy.

The home owners warranty insurance policy contained an excess clause of $500.00. Vero Insurance interpreted this clause to mean that the excess was applied to each lot.  In other words, each lot owner had to pay $500 excess.  Effectively, this decision made the excess for the home owners warranty insurance $100,500.00.

This matter went before the CTTT and it was determined that the insurance company got it wrong.  The CTTT re-imposed the expected excess of $500 for the strata plan as opposed to each lot owner.

We are aware that the insurance company has now lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court against this decision.  We do not expect it to finish there.  If

Vero lose, we still expect that further appeals will emerge because the policy of Vero has huge economic ramifications.  Large Strata Plans represent a small excess of $500.00. Vero would much prefer their current interpretation.

No one can tell what the courts are going to do.  However, whilst Vero is fighting the case, they are still continuing to apply this policy.  Many small strata plans have just decided to pay the excess, believing it would be cheaper than fighting the legal battle.

We will keep you advised regarding the progress of this case.

Where There’s Smoke ~ There’s Fire.

The law is well established in relation to smoke alarms.  Houses need properly fitted smoke alarms whether they are owned or tenanted.  I have been asked in recent times whether a property manager is capable of checking the smoke alarms.  There are people out there saying that property managers cannot check smoke alarms because they are unqualified.

It needs to be said from the outset that property managers are not qualified to determine whether the smoke alarm is working properly or not.  The only thing that a property manager can safely do is tell whether the batteries are in the smoke alarm.  In relation to how effective the smoke alarm is or how electronic smoke alarms work, the property manager is not a professional.

Unfortunately, I think the group who are attempting to become experts in this area are right.  Real estate agents are putting themselves at risk if they are getting their property managers to check the smoke alarm.  The only way the agency can protect itself is to use a properly qualified person to undertake such inspections or to delegate this responsibility to the landlord.

Our strategies are as follows:

• Change your agency agreement to include the arranging of a fire alarm specialist to check smoke alarms.  If that authority is not given, the agency agreement should require the landlord to check all fire alarms and to hire the appropriate persons.
• Obviously, like all your other tradesmen, you need to identify the appropriately qualified and insured persons to undertake these inspections.
• Place as an additional clause to the Residential Tenancies Agreement – a requirement that the tenant advise the agent immediately upon discovering any problems with the smoke alarm.

Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.  Fire destroys premises.  Although the landlord may have adequate insurance, if the agency does not act appropriately, the insurance company will be very happy to sue the agent for the damages.

As good and as diligent as property managers are, it is definitely worth delegating the risk to somebody else.

Home Owners Warranty – A Real Remedy

I have recently been involved with providing advice to an Owners Corporation that have building defects.  The strata manager advised that there could be no access to the home owners warranty insurance policy unless action has been taken in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT).

I cannot see how this advice is correct!  Home Owners Warranty Insurance is essentially an indemnity policy, that is, the insurer warrants that they will ensure defects are repaired where:

• the builder is unable to undertake the defects because the core company has gone into liquidation or they have lost their licence; or
• a builder refuses to undertake the work.

This belief has never been more pointed than in the case which we handled on behalf of a builder some three years ago.  This builder was in dispute with the Owners Corporation over a range of defects.  The Owners Corporation had hired a consultant to consider the defects.  The consultant had initially said there was $23,000 worth of defects and after consultation with the builder $21,000 of defects were approved.  Money exchanged hands with the Owners Corporation to allow the Owners Corporation to commence the work immediately.

The Owners Corporation then decided they did not like their original consultant. They hired another consultant who indicated there was in excess of $100,000 worth of defects.  Again negotiation commenced, but this time without any resolution.

The Strata Plan then made a claim to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to have the defects repaired.  At the first appearance before the Tribunal, the Member mentioned to the Owners Corporation solicitor that they had some difficulties because of the previous consultants report.  The matter was withdrawn from the Tribunal by the Owners Corporation.

The Strata Plan, not to be outdone, then filed a Home Owners Warranty Insurance claim.  Not withstanding the withdrawal from the CTTT, the Home Owners Warranty Insurer contacted the builder and gave them an altermatum: “fix all the repairs or we will, and you will pay.”   He didn’t fix them!  The insurer hired a builder to complete the defects.  Unfortunately, the initial builder was also then sued for the costs of that builder.  The result was that the initial builder was forced into liquidation over these repairs.

As much as we see this as a severe case and a wrongful finding by the insurer, it does provide a clear indication that Home Owners Warranty Insurance is a real remedy.  Irrespective of applying to the CTTT or otherwise, the insurer made certain the repairs were undertaken and completed.  This seems to clearly indicate that the CTTT is not required before a Home Owners Warranty Insurer will take action.

Obviously, this information does depend on the policy that a builder has obtained when building a strata plan.  Check the policy and use the home owners warranty insurance wisely.

We Have Warned You!

Proper certification not a myth.

The Office of Fair Trading have stepped up their attack on unlicensed and unscrupulous real estate agents, stock and station agents, business agents etc.   The latest news release from the Office of Fair Trading identify one real estate agent who has been suspended from holding a licence for ten years because of buying property in an associated company name and selling it on for profit.  One that has not hit the airways is an agent who has lost their licence for 10 years because of not obtaining an agency agreement, acting on one deal without a licence and encountering an act of bankruptcy.   Whether these are too severe is not the issue.   The Office of Fair Trading have clearly sent a message to the world that they are going to punish unscrupulous traders unmercifully.

One of the other issues raised in the Office of Fair Trading news release concerns two stock and station agents at Broken Hill.  In one agency, they found some persons acting without a certificate and fined each of the agents $3,000 for each count of an uncertificated or unlicensed deal.   Most would have thought that they would have been safe in Broken Hill, but the Office of Fair Trading are clearly sending out a message that the arms of the law reach a very long way.

In recent months, we have been undertaking health checks at offices.  These health checks take into account compliance, licensing and relevant laws.  There are three issues which have emerged quite pointedly:

• most receptionists do not hold a Certificate of Registration.
• persons who have a Certificate of Registration allow it to lapse; or
• people have not been transferring their certificates/licenses from their previous place of employment.

In many cases, receptionists do not need to be certificated.  The definition of real estate talks about acting as an agent for reward in an attempt to induce a person to buy, sell or lease.  Most receptionists do not fall into this category.   Nevertheless, the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 clearly states that the person who “collects rent” is a real estate agent therefore, if there is a receptionist who collects any rent throughout the year, they need to have a Certificate of Registration.

It is a regular event for Leverage to consider a person who has allowed their licence or certificate to lapse.  Apart from the clear fact that any agency agreement this person has signed is unenforceable, it leaves the Licensee-In-Charge and the Corporation vulnerable to a fine.   Because the Licensee-In-Charge is responsible for the proper supervision of all their staff,  Licensee’s-In-Charge who have staff who have lapsed certificates or licences, will be fined for that event alone.   Repeated events will indicate this person is not performing proper supervision persuant to Section 32 and may lose their licence.

The final category seems to be one of the most prevalent.  We have seen persons who have transferred offices who leave their certificate or licence listed at the previous office.  These people are not in breach, however the office who has employed them is in breach by not properly advising the Office of Fair Trading.   What is worse is that, we had a client in the last two years who has sold a property which would have net them $126,000 of income.  The person signing the agency agreement was registered with another organisation.   Because Section 55 states that an agency agreement must be signed by or on behalf of the licensee, the fact that this person “worked” for another agency indicated that they could not sign on behalf of their current licensee.

The Broken Hill case is a sober warning to all of us to take hold of our licences and certificates.  It is also vital for the collection of income which makes up a business.  Set procedures in place to ensure that licences are renewed on time and that the organisation does not suffer because of sales persons being slack.  What is really important for a business is that managers oversee their licences and certificates, so the slackness does not cost.