Source: Radio New Zealand
RNZ / Dom Thomas
One of the country’s most prominent buyers’ agencies has complained to the Real Estate Authority about a rise in “property flippers” making six-figures from unwitting vendors.
Earlier, Cotality told RNZ that the number of contemporaneous sales had lifted significantly last year after a sharp fall in 2023.
“There was a lift in these types of transactions last year, almost double 2024, and even more than what we saw through the Covid boom times,” head of research Nick Goodall said.
In a contemporaneous settlement, a property flipper often makes an offer with a long settlement period, and then finds another buyer to purchase the property the same day they have to settle, making money on the transaction.
iFindProperty co-founder Maree Tassell said there was noticeably more of the activity happening.
“It’s quite common that there are some deals out there where people are making over $100,000-plus on contemporaneous settlements, getting a property under contract. The poor old vendor, and even often the vendor’s agents will think ‘oh this is a real purchaser’. This is what’s really pissing me off.
“You’re getting these people come along, they get the property under contract, they act like they are the buyer. They tie a property up to say 20 days’ due diligence and then they’re immediately sending it out to their database and putting a big margin on it trying to onsell the property… they will pretend they’re bringing a builder through or pretend they’re bringing a valuer through and it will be a potential buyer. It’s quite deceptive to the vendors and quite deceptive sometimes to the agents.”
She said people saw it as a quick way to make money.
“And you get a whole lot of people creating mentoring services… they’re charging people money to come and learn how to make money in property.
“It’s all very sexy and it’s called no money down deals so they’re teaching people who know [not much] about property and don’t have the money to buy property just basically how to tie property contacts up and sell the contract. There’s no protection for the consumer, there’s no protection often for the vendor. They don’t know what’s happening.”
Property law expert Joanna Pidgeon said traders who were finding properties, buying them personally and then onselling were excluded from having to comply with the Real Estate Agents Act because they were self representing.
“Companies that sell property owned by the company directly to consumers are not required to hold a real estate licence issued by REA. However, a company that engages a contractor or sales agent who does not hold an active real estate licence to act as their representative on property sales may be engaged in unlicensed trading.
“People who buy directly from property traders who are not licensed do not have the same protections as when buying from a licensed real estate agent. This is particularly important as there is a conflict of interest when a trader is onselling directly. A purchaser should be seeking advice in relation to this, and should have their deposit held in a trust account pending the vendor becoming the registered owner of the property. We have seen some purchasers lose their deposits when traders have got into financial difficulty and the deposit has been released but the vendor unable to settle to enable the onsale.”
Tassell said she had meetings with both the Real Estate Institute and Real Estate Authority about the issue, which were positive.
The Real Estate Authority said it received a range of inquiries about property related activity and whether activity is within its regulatory scope. “We are not able to comment on any recent enquiries while our enquiries are ongoing, particularly out of fairness to the parties and to preserve the integrity of the process.”
Tassell said her business would make it clear if it were onselling, “We have a clause saying we’re licensed buyers’ agents. We’re not buying the property. We’re looking for someone to buy it. It’s total transparency with the vendor, it’s total transparency with the vendor’s agent. And then with our clients, the purchasers, it’s total transparency what they pay us. We’re not putting $150,000 between contracts and just laughing all the way to the bank.”
Sign up for Money with Susan Edmunds, a weekly newsletter covering all the things that affect how we make, spend and invest money.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand