5 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

A VibrantVictoria reader has brought to our attention multiple recent disciplinary decisions by the Real-Estate Council of British Columbia (RECBC) for misconduct by local realtors.

According to the reader, disciplinary decisions are no longer reported by the mainstream media with the frequency that they once were and the individual feels the public should be aware of the RECBC's actions against local realtors.

The public has access to RECBC disciplinary records here.

[Mr_E_Squirrel]

$1000 and a reprimand the most they can charge?

thanks for the link

[Rob Randall]

It would be good for media to cover these because it's hard for us to tell which infractions are innocent rookie errors in procedure and which are attempts to deceive and cheat.

[tedward]

Going back to April I see only one that appears on it's face to warrant public notice. All the others look to my uninformed eye as little more than bookkeeping errors. Probably a good reason for proper media scrutiny to actually inform the public what happens and how they might be affected.

[Rob Randall]

"A Victoria real estate agent is facing $9,000 in fines and a 60-day licence suspension after breaking several professional rules during the sale of her father's half-million-dollar property, according to a decision by the Real Estate Council of B.C.

Whitney Garside's missteps — outlined this week in a disciplinary decision posted on the council's website — included falsely advertising the property as being almost twice its actual size and advising the buyer they could avoid the property transfer tax if they paid cash directly to the seller."

 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/n...nsion-1.5838669

 

https://www.saanichn...OsHT9y7qde2BT3s

[JohnsonStBridge]

I don't know how the reporter missed that the agent named her business "Happy Cat Real Estate" with a slogan of "Putting the MEOW in hoMEOWners". Would appear to be a missed opportunity for the headline there. And any business that prides themselves on a love of cats over professional representation of their clients is likely unsuitable to provide advice on the applicability of tax.

 

The real kicker that the article also fails to mention is that the $42K cash side payment was never even paid in full. The buyer only ever produced $10K so the agent ended up launching a counter lawsuit for the remaining $32K. Aside from the ethical blunder, it seems fitting that they got burned as a result of advising and facilitating the buyer to commit tax evasion.