Melbourne developer Spacious Group has completed Voyage Altona, one of the closest new apartment developments to Altona Beach.

Off the plan purchasers have started moving into the 49-apartment project on Pier Street, with the remaining move-in-ready one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments starting from just over $500,000.

Display apartments have now been fitted out, allowing prospective buyers to inspect the completed residences by appointment.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112195 project_image_fid=372638]

The completed apartments feature open-plan living and dining areas which extend onto private balconies and terraces, while full-height glazing maximises natural light throughout the interiors.&nbsp;

Hybrid timber-look flooring, stone benchtops, Miele appliances, porcelain-tiled bathrooms and generous storage feature throughout the building which also features landscaped communal areas, expansive shared terraces, lift access and secure on-grade parking.

Drawing inspiration from its bayside setting, Voyage adopts a restrained palette of warm neutral tones and textured finishes. Many of the apartments take advantage of views across Port Phillip Bay, while the indoor-outdoor living spaces have been designed to make the most of the coastal outlook.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112195 project_image_fid=3286]

Voyage was developed to address what Spacious Group identified as an undersupply of higher-quality apartment product in Altona, with a focus on owner-occupiers looking to remain within the bayside community.

"Voyage responds to very strong local buyer demand for quality, owner-occupier-focused product," says Barry Plant Projects Director Jarrod Farey, who has handled sales since the project's launch.

"The project delivers an elevated lifestyle proposition, with its design and quality of finish far exceeding anything previously produced in the area, as well as its proximity to Pier Street Village and the beach."

The majority of purchasers have been local downsizers and owner-occupiers looking to stay within the Altona community but who previously had limited opportunities to buy a brand-new apartment.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112195]

Joel Robinson

Spacious Group completes Voyage Altona in Altona's beachside precinct

Homecorp has secured approval for a $360 million apartment development at Budds Beach, paving the way for one of the Gold Coast's most amenity-rich residential projects to launch later this year.

Gold Coast City Council has approved Lýon Residences, a 32-level tower that will deliver 178 two and three-bedroom apartments across a prominent corner site at 8-10 Acacia Avenue and 25-27 Oak Avenue.

The approval comes as developers continue to invest in premium lifestyle-driven apartment projects on the Gold Coast, where owner occupiers are increasingly prioritising amenity as much as apartment size and location.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/l-on-residences-25-27-oak-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Lýon Residences</a> has been designed around a resort-style wellness offering, headlined by a Moroccan-inspired spa precinct featuring treatment rooms, a Nordic sauna and steam room, hot and cold plunge pools, a soaking pool and a residents-only juice bar.

The rooftop will include a heated infinity pool and spa, residents' lounge with private kitchen and bar, gymnasium, yoga and Pilates studio, outdoor entertaining areas and barbecue facilities overlooking the Surfers Paradise skyline.

<img alt="Lyon" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2d3e29af-8793-486e-a684-52cef862241f" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-07-15%20at%204.32.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ayG2zpLf3SS6Zy8XmKDcQods4kVWb0gm" />

Homecorp Founder and CEO Ron Bakir said Budds Beach provided the ideal location for the company's latest luxury apartment project.

"Budds Beach represents one of the most unique and sought-after pockets of the Gold Coast, and Lýon Residences has been designed to reflect that sense of rarity and refinement," Bakir said.

The project arrives as wellness continues to become a defining feature of new residential developments both in Australia and internationally.

The latest Global Wellness Institute figures show wellness real estate remains the fastest-growing segment of the global wellness economy and is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion by 2030. Australia continues to rank among the world's 15 largest wellness real estate markets, with developers increasingly integrating health, recreation and community facilities into apartment projects.

Queensland is also experiencing strong population growth, with the Gold Coast continuing to outperform many other Australian cities as demand for new housing remains elevated ahead of the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Bakir said the project had been designed to respond to that shift in buyer expectations.

"Strong population growth and sustained demand across the Gold Coast continue to highlight the need for well-designed new housing supply. Lýon Residences responds directly to this demand while setting a new benchmark for residential living," he said.

Each apartment has been designed to maximise views across the coastline, the Nerang River and the Gold Coast hinterland.

Located just minutes from Surfers Paradise beach and the Broadwater, the development also offers easy access to the light rail network, Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads.

Early site works are underway, with construction expected to commence later this year.

Homecorp approved for Budds Beach apartment tower, Lýon Residences

New apartment developments with uninterrupted, north-facing views over Perth's Swan River are exceptionally rare.

Recognising just how limited those opportunities are, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/edge-visionary-living">Edge Visionary Living</a>, one of Perth's most respected builder-developers, targeted <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/applecross-wa-6153">Applecross</a>, assembling an unrepeatable 6,342 sqm riverfront site on the corner of Moreau Mews and Canning Beach Road to create one of Perth's only new north-facing apartment developments directly overlooking the Swan River.

Today, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/buildings/riviere-residences-applecross-59-canning-beach-road-applecross-wa-6153">Rivière Residences</a> offers buyers a unique opportunity to choose between completed residences ready to move into now and off-the-plan homes in the final stage, Rivière West.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28384 project_image_fid=3823]

Across the completed East and Central buildings, residents are already enjoying the development's luxury amenity, while two of the precinct's hospitality venues are now open.

The completed component of the development gives buyers the advantage of experiencing the finished product firsthand, including its uninterrupted river views, while still having the opportunity to secure a residence in the final stage.

"People are wowed by the view and the quality of the apartments,"&nbsp;Edge Visionary Living Sales Executive, Holly McSweeney, says.

"They're looking for the convenience of lock-and-leave living, but they're not looking to downsize on quality."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28384 project_image_fid=3826]

The rarity of the development hasn't been lost on prospective buyers, McSweeney says.

For McSweeney, it all comes back to a location that is becoming increasingly difficult to replicate.

"Location, location, location," she says. "We are nestled right on the front of the Swan River. You can never get built out, so wherever you are in Rivière Residences, you've got views of the river forever."

The unique waterfront position has resonated particularly strongly with local downsizers. McSweeney says many buyers are long-time Applecross residents looking to transition from large family homes into a luxury apartment without sacrificing space, quality or the lifestyle they've enjoyed for decades.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N_FowNW0wu8?si=vb25XFq1wZ-iufAW" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

A major focus for Edge in recent years has been resident amenity. Across its apartment portfolio, from beachfront developments in Scarborough to luxury towers in South Perth, the developer has increasingly invested in the spaces beyond the apartment itself.

The strategy has largely been shaped by downsizer demand. Many buyers are moving from large family homes with swimming pools and established gardens. While they're looking to leave the maintenance behind, they don't want to compromise on lifestyle.

At Rivière, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/hillam-architects">Hillam Architects</a> designed the resident facilities as an extension of each apartment. A 25-metre heated swimming pool takes advantage of the north-facing river outlook, complemented by a large gym, sauna and steam rooms, private dining spaces, residents' lounges, a cinema, games room, and dedicated wine and whisky rooms.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28384 project_image_fid=372542]

The waterfront location has also proved to be a major drawcard. Residents are within walking distance of the Raffles Hotel, South of Perth Yacht Club, the Heathcote Cultural Precinct and the cafés, restaurants and boutiques along Ardross Street.

Beyond the location and amenity, McSweeney says many buyers take confidence from Edge's fully integrated development model.

Having delivered apartments across Perth for decades, Edge now designs, develops and constructs its projects in-house, giving the company greater control over quality, delivery and the finished product.

"What I love is when people walk through their apartment for the first time and say, 'This is better than what we imagined,'" McSweeney says. "We hear that all the time."

Completed apartments in the East and Central buildings are now available to inspect by appointment, while Rivière West, the final stage of the precinct, is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2027.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=28384]

North-facing Swan River views drive demand at Rivière Residences in Applecross

Nearly 60 per cent of apartments at McNab Group's $220 million The Tannery development in Brisbane's West End have sold ahead of the project's public launch, including a suburb-record $2.57 million sale for a two-bedroom apartment.

The early sales campaign has secured buyers for 50 of the project's 87 apartments, highlighting continued demand for larger owner-occupier apartments that combine generous floorplans with premium lifestyle amenities in one of Brisbane's most tightly held inner-city suburbs.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143337 project_image_fid=374768]

McNab Group Executive Chairman Michael McNab said selling more than half the project before launch reflected changing buyer expectations.

"Selling more than half the project before public sales open tells us buyers are actively seeking apartments that offer something genuinely different," McNab said.

"Today's buyers are looking beyond four walls. They want homes that genuinely enhance the way they live, with spaces that support health, connection and everyday wellbeing."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143337 project_image_fid=374767]

A key point of difference for the project is the adaptive reuse of the heritage-listed Dixon's Tannery building, which will become The Retreat, a residents-only wellness precinct rather than being redeveloped into additional apartments.

The Retreat will feature a sauna and steam room, hot and cold plunge pools, a commercial-grade gym, Pilates studio, cinema, library, co-working spaces and private dining room. Rooftop amenities will include a swimming pool, landscaped gardens, outdoor entertaining areas and dog-friendly spaces.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143337 project_image_fid=374760]

Designed by Cottee Parker Architects with interiors by Tom Mark Henry and landscape architecture by Aspect Studios, The Tannery comprises 87 two, three and four-bedroom apartments across 11 levels overlooking the Brisbane River.

Cottee Parker principal Dee Passenger said preserving the original tannery building had been central to the project's design.

"The easy option would have been to maximise the site's development potential with additional apartments. Instead, McNab has chosen to preserve the original tannery as a shared wellness retreat, ensuring this important piece of Brisbane's history remains at the heart of the community."

Passenger said sustainability also played a key role in the design, with materials from the original industrial site salvaged and repurposed throughout the development.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143337 project_image_fid=374761]

Motiv CEO Carly Cottam said buyers had responded strongly to the combination of larger apartments, wellness facilities and the West End lifestyle.

"We are seeing more buyers looking for homes in the sky that provide the space and functionality of a traditional home, while benefiting from the convenience and lifestyle that apartment living brings," Cottam said.

She said purchasers included both owner occupiers and investors, with demand coming from local buyers as well as interstate purchasers.

Coinciding with the public launch, McNab also announced a partnership with Queensland Ballet, whose neighbouring Thomas Dixon Centre shares historical ties with the original Dixon family.

Located on a 4,465 sqm site at 439 Montague Road, The Tannery overlooks the Brisbane River and is around 10 minutes from the CBD.

Construction is underway, with completion expected in the second half of 2027.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=143337]

More than half of residences sold before public sales as McNab announces significant partnership with Queensland Ballet

McNab's The Tannery nears 60 per cent sold before public release, sets two-bedroom West End record

Iwan Sunito's vision for a landmark mixed-use precinct in Sydney's Inner West has taken a major step forward, with approval granted for the $1.9 billion Five Dock development first unveiled earlier this year.

The approved scheme by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/one-global-capital">One Global Capital</a> will deliver an 80,500 sqm mixed-use precinct comprising 840 apartments, integrated hotel accommodation, commercial and retail space, alongside publicly accessible open space designed to create a new destination for the growing suburb.

"This is a significant milestone for One Global Capital and for the future of housing delivery in Sydney," Sunito said.

"The Housing Delivery Authority was established to identify major housing projects capable of delivering meaningful supply more efficiently, and we are delighted that Spencer Street has been recognised as one of those projects.”

He said the declaration reflected the rapid progress achieved since acquiring control of the site.

"In less than seven months we have progressed from taking control of the site to securing entry into one of the NSW Government's most important planning pathways. It reflects the experience of our team, the strength of our consultant group led by Urbis, and our long-term commitment to delivering transformational projects that contribute to Sydney's future."

When the project was revealed earlier this year, Sunito described the opportunity as one of the strongest development sites he had worked on.

"I probably hadn't appreciated the uniqueness of the site until more recently when putting together the concept plans," Sunito said.

"The proximity to the water, and the golf course opposite, is unlike any other part of Parramatta Road. We have a unique position and view corridors over the water that makes this one of the best sites I've worked on."

The development has evolved since its initial announcement, with the approved plans increasing the residential component from the originally proposed 750 apartments to 840 homes while retaining the project's focus on creating an integrated neighbourhood rather than a standalone residential development.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/a-city-within-a-city-iwan-sunito-flags-1-5-billion-mixed-use-precinct-in-five-dock">"A city within a city": Iwan Sunito flags $1.5 billion mixed-use precinct in Five Dock</a>

The precinct will combine apartments with hotel accommodation, commercial workplaces, retail offerings and public spaces, creating a mixed-use environment intended to serve both residents and the broader Five Dock community. The proposal also continues the collaboration between One Global Capital and internationally recognised architect <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/koichi-takada-architects">Koichi Takada</a>, whose previous work with Sunito includes Infinity, Arc and Skye North Sydney.

Takada previously said the design was driven by a philosophy of integrating nature into the built environment.

"The concept for this development is born from our design approach to naturalising architecture," Takada said.

"The public realm benefits from biophilic design that integrates generous landscaping, and the development is optimised for natural daylight, airflow and water views to foster wellbeing, sustainability and spaces that foster community interaction."

Sunito has consistently described the project as a "city within a city", with a strong emphasis on creating a destination that extends beyond housing.

"We want to create a development that's not only to be seen, but to be experienced by the whole local community," he said.

The approval comes as Five Dock continues its transformation ahead of the opening of the Sydney Metro West line, with the new Five Dock station set to significantly improve connections between the Inner West, Parramatta and the Sydney CBD.&nbsp;

The precinct will also benefit from its proximity to the Parramatta Road corridor, nearby waterfront parklands and established retail and dining offerings that have made Five Dock one of Sydney's most tightly held Inner West suburbs.

Iwan Sunito secures approval for $1.9 billion Five Dock mixed-use precinct

Underquoting

<html><body>
The NSW government will amend underquoting laws to cover not only employees of real estate agencies but their representatives, independent contractors, subsidiaries or any related entities who act for them.
The amendments will widen the net to prevent illegal underquoting after Sydney agency BresicWhitney escaped allegations after a loophole deemed that two of its agents were not "employees" as required under the current act.
The changes were introduced in the NSW Parliament today.
In 2015, the NSW Fair Trading took BresicWhitney to court alleging it "falsely understated the likely selling price of residential property to consumers" through its two agents Nic Krasnostein and Walter Burfitt-Williams.
BresicWhitney's defence that they were not employed by BresicWhitney but by a subsidiary company, BWEA Employees Pty Ltd, was accepted by the courts.
The Magistrate accepted this defence and all charges were dismissed due to a legal technicality based on a statutory interpretation of ‘employee’ in the Act and the fact that there is no deeming provision in the Act for vicarious criminal liability.
"These changes will close a corporate loophole that has allowed agents to escape liability under the Act, and will provide consumers with additional protection," Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation Victor Dominello said.
"Underquoting is illegal, misleads prospective buyers and undermines the property market."
“These changes will close a corporate loophole that has allowed agents to escape liability under the Act, and will provide consumers with additional protection.”
Since the new underquoting laws came into effect in January, the practice of price baiting including the use of inducements such as "offers above" and "offers over" had declined, the government suggested.
But illegal off-market open for inspections without contracts have been on the rise. 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Property 101: BresicWhitney underquoting law to come to NSW Parliament this week

<html><body>
Melbourne real estate agency Hockingstuart has been fined $330,000 fine after admitting to underquoting properties advertised for sale.
The punishment was handed down in the Federal Court with Justice John Middleton saying the matter was serious.
“Price is an essential piece of information about the property being offered for sale for prospective buyers,” he said.
“Buyers should be able to rely on correct information to make an informed decision.”
Simon Jovanovic, CEO of hockingstuart advised he takes "very seriously" the need for his franchisees to accurately price properties in marketing.
"Our Richmond office has already implemented a number of changes including establishing a rigorous in-house compliance program to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
"As Justice Middleton referred to in his judgment, this is a substantial penalty for a company the size of hockingstuart Richmond.
"We are disappointed with the severity of the penalty handed down and the example being made of our Richmond office for what is an issue that impacts the real estate industry as a whole," Simon Jovanovic said.
Sitesh Bhojani, for the director of CAV, told the court one Hockingstuart, Richmond, agent, Daniel Atsis, told a vendor who had expressed concerns about the advertising of his property via email that “unfortunately there’s a culture of underquoting in Richmond. The price range is used more as a marketing tool than an indication.”
The court heard that another implicated agent, Trent Stewart, wrote to a client: “We want to get the best price for you, and the best way to do that is to create an illusion of a bargain”.
The agency admitted to misleading and deceiving buyers in 2014 and 2015. It was fined $30,000 for each of the 11 breaches of consumer laws by its Richmond branch associated with houses listed across Richmond and Kew.
“The manipulation of the ‘agent’s estimate of selling price’ for the properties did demonstrate the lengths that Hocking Stuart Richmond went to in creating its enticing (but illusory and misleading) marketing web. There was a conscious decision to engage in the conduct.”.
Victoria Consumer Affairs told the court Hockingstuart misled buyers about 11 properties including 310/59 Coppin Street, Richmond, which sold for $545,000.
The sale of 278 Mary Street, Richmond, for $955,000 in August 2014 was another of the properties investigated. 
Other properties named in the legal action were a two-bedroom apartment in Docker Street, Richmond, which sold for $667,000 and a grand Edwardian in Kew’s Barkers Road, sold for $955,000.
In NSW the major case of alleged underqoting saw the magistrate of Blacktown Local Court dismissing all charges against BresicWhitney Estate Agents Pty Ltd earlier this year.
After a considerably delayed trial, the dismissal came on a technicality concerning the term ‘employee’ in the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (the Act).
In this case the ‘operating’ arm of the business was the licence holder and undertook the business of a real estate agent.
A subsidiary company ‘employed’ the employees.
As a result the court found the ‘employees’ who made the statements about price, which were less than the estimated selling price in the agency agreement, were not technically employed by the licensed agent.
"This is not the policy intent of the provisions and in his findings the Magistrate acknowledged the likelihood that the business was structured in a way that would insulate it to some degree against liability in the event of such matters," a department spokesperson advised.
The NSW consumer watchdog advised the more serious price discrepancy alleged was at Double Bay, where the publicly published price guidance reputedly did not match the private agency agreement documentation in the office paperwork.
The Murilla apartment at 62/543-545 New South Head Road had a reported price guide of over $1.5 million, but Fair Trading investigations revealed the selling price estimate in the agency agreement at the low end of $1.6 million.
The prosecutions were only the third in a decade. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2015/03/16/cartoon%20march%2016.jpg" alt="">
Source: Sunday Telegraph
 
 
 
</body></html>

Hockingstuart fined $330,000 for underquoting

<html><body>
Unlawful and unethical marketing strategies, which are at the heart of a large percentage of auction campaigns, will be the demise for many vendors.
A failure for vendors and a bigger failure for the real estate industry. 
No price guide. Is it the new under-quoting?
Ignorance or blatant disregard?
To begin, when agents seemingly don't understand nor can confidently form an opinion about property prices, they should seriously get out of the industry and go back to selling cars.
Pushing vendors for an auction campaign and all because agents fail to understand the dynamics of real estate and appraising property is not the method to achieve the best outcomes. Confusion and misdirection does not lead to clarity.
In my many dealings with local agents, I have found that many agents not onl do not understand how to appraise property, they also don’t understand property marketing 101. Both are essential in the process to achieve the best result for vendors.
For many, the quickest and easiest method is to “take the property to auction.” Real estate agents see this as the fail-safe method. The good old, “I can’t be blamed for the low price – its market forces…” excuse.
In my opinion, achieving the best outcomes for the vendor is not about; speed of sale nor how easy it would be for the agent to manage the sale.
The above therefore translates to being a major issue for vendors. My reasoning will be summed up in this article, and under the following four points. 
Why so many agents push for auction campaigns
1)     When many agents push for “auction campaigns.” What do they really want to achieve?
a.     Tie-up the vendor and have them commit to accept a price on the day. All due to the vendor’s large expenditure in their auction marketing campaign.
b.     They don’t want to work for the vendor for long and rightfully earn the commission.
c.     There is a belief that when a property is auctioned off; the market dictates the best price on the day. This, in turn, forces the vendor to accept anything on the day. Even if it is below what buyers were willing to pay. See tweets by @REshortsell
2)     Agents have in the past, purposely and will continue to under-quote the property to draw a crowd. To the vendor this appears as;
a.     A good turnout. Therefore, whatever the final bid is, determines the so called value of the property on the day.
3)     Agents have purposely under-quoted to draw a crowd, and to the buyer this appears as;
a.     A need to bid and bid emotionally, due to an overwhelming fear of missing out on the property. Thus creating, the control needed for the agent to show the vendor the bidder’s participation; to give the illusion of success.
4)     Agents want a quick turnaround and a quick commission fix.
a. Auction campaigns run for four weeks and the agents are guaranteed a commission at the end with great certainty. This is all due to the pressure placed on the vendor, as noted above. Pressure also added by the large marketing fees paid to run the auction campaign.
Now to the nut-and-bolts: Why this article? Why today?
I attended an recent auction in Parramatta. This auction was one promoted by a local, prominent and brand-name agency. What I was witness to will make Fair Trading NSW take special notice.
I will detail the conversations and the agent’s arrogance below. One may also note, his ignorance or even deliberate arrogance in regards to the auction process.
Conversation with the listing agent: words to the effect;
Me: Do you mind telling me the price-guide?
Agent: I can’t disclose the price-guide because the vendor won’t allow me to.
Me: If you can’t disclose the guide, then what is your opinion of value of the property?
Agent: I can’t say as there are no comparable sales in the area. [Keep in mind; this is advertised as two bedroom penthouse unit in Parramatta with a large balcony]
Me: Really, no comparable sales?  Couldn’t you base it on square meters, location and perhaps aesthetic value?
Agent: No! There are no comparable sales and I don’t know what it would sell for. [I heard something similar with respect to well documented auctions at Millers Point…]
Me: In the agency agreement; you must have given the vendor a price-guide, right?
Agent: Yes, we have to [by law].
Me: So, you must, as an agent, be able to form an opinion of the value of the property; I’m not going to hold you to it.
Agent: I don’t have to disclose what I gave to the vendor to you. And besides, there are no comparable sales. If you wanted a price-guide, you should have called me before the auction.
Me: I did call you twice; you told me the new legislation doesn’t allow real estate agents to give price-guides. Why is that?
Agent: It’s against the law and Fair Trading NSW guide lines tells us not to give guides.
Me: Is that so… But you gave the vendor a guide right? Can you show me the agency agreement, or tell me what you wrote on it?
Agent: No, I don’t have to show it to you.
The agent turns away and focuses on other potential, interested and registered bidders.
Buyer: Will the building next to this one, block out the view, when it is completed?
Agent: No it is against the law to block out the views, that’s why they are building it in two sections.
I smiled and shook my head as I walked away in total disbelief of the conversation I just had and the one I overheard. A conversation not dissimilar to the one’s where agents “spruikers” tell investors that they have insurance cover for 7 years, in high-rise apartment blocks. And pigs fly…
The outcome:
There was a crowd of approximately 26 people. The opening bid was $850,000. Subsequently, the property was passed in at $860,000 with only one bidder; whom strangely bid against himself.  
Overhearing the agent’s discussions with both the vendor’s representative and bidder at the time; we found out:
1)     The reserve had been set at $950,000 by the vendor and on the day.
2)     The agent's sale expectations was closer to the $1,000,000 + due to other sales.
3)     The agent also miraculously, appeared to know (had a revelation one might say) what other similar units in the area were being sold for.
Surprise, surprise. It appears the agent did give the vendor an estimated value of the property. One that was a lot higher than what it was passed in at.
For now we are noticing more and more; agents like this one, hide behind their misinterpretation of the FT NSW guide lines and what the guide lines were purposed for.
Furthermore, when more and more buyers are educated to counter the foolish, unethical and illegal tactics used by agents in their auction campaigns; buyers gain the advantage. Agents in turn, place their vendors at a high risk of losing $10’s if not $100’s of thousands of dollars.
Foolishly, both the agent and auctioneer, further allowed the property to be passed in at a low price. A price lower than the reserve. No vendor-bid was given, to help in maintaining a better chance of achieving the desired result, when the sale reverts to a private-treaty sale.
Why did they get a low offer in the first instance? This was all because the agent wanted to draw a crowd. No price-guide is the new under-quoting.
Well, in this auction, the “dumb and dumber” tactics backfired and more will continue to fail like this auction campaign.  Perhaps it’s time vendors made agents more accountable, particularly when they are charged high marketing fees.
Nonetheless, the losers in all this and like many other auctions, are the vendors. The vendor placed his trust in a professional that would guide them on the best method of sale.
The agent failed to both: to provide the best service to the client and present an ethical marketing campaign to engage the consumers (the buyers). Buyers want transparency, not the smoke and mirrors approach adopted by foolish agents.
Not quoting a price guide and going to auction with so many other comparable properties on the market, was a recipe for failure.
The campaign failed: it did however, draw a very large crowd but a crowd that was not willing to play the agent’s game. They could see right through the unethical conduct of the agent.
In this case, I am familiar with the vendors. I know for a fact they would not be bullied by the agent into accepting a lower than anticipated [quoted] price.
Reasons for marketing property by an auction campaign
The main principles for taking property for auction resound so clearly, as I write this article and sip down to the end of my coffee.
1)     Uniqueness (truly no comparable sales).
2)     Motivation:
a.     Forced sale by court order.
b.     Quick and urgent sale for personal reasons.
c.     Time constraint.
3)     Development potential: building or land.
4)     An unfinished project even.
Now there are many more, however, the above is a good beginner’s guide. For the same reasons above, there are also alternate methods of sale and ones that can achieve a better outcome. This is a better outcome in relation to both the price and the way the sales process is handled.
George Rousos: Real estate trainer, course developer and compliance coach at Industry Training Consultants, shares an alternate approach to a public auctions. 
My tip for real estate agents
If in total doubt and a value can’t be determined to be within the guide lines set out by FT NSW; call a licensed valuer. A licensed valuer can assist agents that have issues with forming a realistic price-guide.
Transparency is what buyers are looking for. If some agents believe they can fool buyers; think again. Buyers more than ever, are equipped with tools to help determine price values. In some areas, buyers are also contracting the services of “buyers advocates” to assist them.
However, it must be said that some agents just don’t believe they need, nor want professional help. Some simply feel they are above the law and protected by their real estate office-brand. Some simply run on an overdose of “auction and how to crunch the vendor” seminars.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

ealmedia-arK4DBYLjS

No price guide is the new underquoting: Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
Real estate agents in Victoria could be forced to publish indicative selling prices on listings as soon as early 2017 following the underquoting controversy in the state. 
The government plans to make it compulsory for an agent to attach an information statement to their listings.
Under the new laws, agents must provide prospective buyers with a comprehensive market analysis including three recent comparable sales, an indicative selling price, and the median price for the suburb. 
Common terms on property listings such as 'contact agent', 'price on application' and 'sale by negotiation' may disappear.
Only a 10 percent price range will also be allowed, with words and symbols suggesting figures such as '$1.2 million+' or 'offers over $1.2 million' will not be allowed.
Agents will have 24 hours to update advertising materials if a vendor has rejected a written offer above the advertised price, or the agent’s price estimate changes. 
The REIV have backed the possible changes, suggesting it will be a significant step forward and will greatly benefit those looking to buy property in Victoria.
REIV chief executive officer Geoff White said that the changes will create a more transparent market, providing clear information to all stakeholders.
“A key objective of the new laws has been to ensure that they are effective in a rising or a falling market, and we believe they have delivered on this objective," he said.
“The changes will provide consistency in pricing of property and the information provided to both vendors and buyers."
The changes come as part of the state governments crackdown on underquoting, where an agent misleads a prospective buyer about the likely sale price.
RealAs however suggest the new underquoting laws will fail.
They suggest some rogue real estate operators which underquote property prices to unsuspecting property buyers will continue to do so despite the laws.
Here is why RealAs believe the Victorian Underquoting Laws will fail:
- Advertising price ranges of more than 10 percent is banned
- Words or symbols in advertising such as 'offers above,' 'from' or '+' will be banned
- How does consumer Affairs Victoria ensure the comparable sales are truly comparable to the property for sale?
- Advertising must promptly updated if the seller rejects a written offer to purchase, or the agent's price estimate changes
- Agents found guilty of underquoting could lose their sales commissions
- Agents have to prove on request from Consumer Affairs Victoria how they arrived at the estimated price
- Real estate agents caught underquoting will face hefty fines, with new offences with penalties of more than $31,000
- The new laws are part of the Labor Government's work to make the real estate industry fairer. The Government has consulted with the REIV which has backed the reforms.
- Rogue Victorian real estate agents which want to underquote under the proposed laws will continue to do so.
To read more about the new underquoting laws <a href="https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-underquoting-laws-for-victoria/" target="_blank">click here</a>. 
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Property 101: Legislation changes as Victoria cracks down on underquoting

<html><body>
The hockingstuart Richmond real estate agency has admitted it underquoted on property listings.
Hockingstuart Richmond was accused of 11 contraventions of Australian Consumer Law relating to deceptive conduct and misleading representations relating to land sale.
Tony Nolan QC, for the estate agency, told the Federal Court hockingstuart would be “admitting every fact” during the hearing yesterday. The sentence hearing gets underway next week.
The realAs website noted the agency has improved its price guidance as in June 2015 hockingstuart Richmond was inaccurately quoting properties by 22 percent on average, ie a $1,000,000 agent quoted house would typically sell for $1,228,000.
Now they are one of the most accurate quoters of property prices at 11 percent on average.
Hockingstuart issued a statement saying it took seriously its responsibility to accurately price properties.
“Our network of 50 offices successfully helps 20,000 Victorians buy and sell their homes each year so it is disappointing to see this outcome,” the statement said.
“As master franchisor, we are doing everything in our power to reduce the risk of this happening again.
"We have recently run a number of refresher courses in accurate pricing across the entire group and will continue to work with all offices to audit their sales files — ensuring this training has been embedded at all agent levels.”
The consumer watchdog’s half-year report noted 12 major underquoting investigations underway, but the CAV is yet to take legal action against any other agencies.
</body></html>

Hockingstuart Richmond admit to underquoting

<html><body>
The magistrate of Blacktown Local Court has handed down judgement dismissing all charges against BresicWhitney Estate Agents Pty Ltd for falsely understating the estimated selling prices when marketing properties in 2014.
After a considerably delayed trial, the dismissal came on a technicality concerning the term ‘employee’ in the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (the Act).
In this case the ‘operating’ arm of the business was the licence holder and undertook the business of a real estate agent.
A subsidiary company ‘employed’ the employees.
As a result the court found the ‘employees’ who made the statements about price, which were less than the estimated selling price in the agency agreement, were not technically employed by the licensed agent.
"This is not the policy intent of the provisions and in his findings the Magistrate acknowledged the likelihood that the business was structured in a way that would insulate it to some degree against liability in the event of such matters," a department spokesperson advised.
While the prosecution was taken under the old laws, the Government is now seeking urgent legal advice.
"Consumers can be assured any legal loopholes will be closed," the spokesperson advised.
No legislative timetable has been yet offered on the prospect of a BresicWhitney amendment.
Fair Trading is also still considering its position in relation to any appeal.
The consumer watchdog advised the more serious price discrepancy alleged was at Double Bay, where the publicly published price guidance reputedly did not match the private agency agreement documentation in the office paperwork.
The Murilla apartment at <a href="https://www.bresicwhitney.com.au/buy/543-545-new-south-head-road-double-bay-9956" target="_blank">62/543-545 New South Head Road</a> had a reported price guide of over $1.5 million last November, but Fair Trading investigations revealed the selling price estimate in the agency agreement at the low end of $1.6 million.
The late 1950s, A.M. Bolot-designed, company title apartment (below) was reported in the Wentworth Courier as sold for $1.79 million (and at $1.76 million by the Sunday Telegraph) through agent Walter Burfitt-Williams. The three bedroom sub-penthouse had 176 square metres space in the eight storey block above Redleaf Pool at the corner of New South Head and Victoria roads. The previous time it was marketed for sale was in 1989.
<img src="/images/2015/03/16/oduble-bay-march-16-one.jpg" alt="" width="764" height="450">
When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph cost of living editor, John Rolfe, before its front page splash, Walter Burfitt-Williams said: “The owner gave us instructions.”
At Surry Hills an 1890s terrace house at <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-nsw-surry+hills-118276043" target="_blank">14 Collins Street</a> was advertised last November with a price guide of over $1.05 million, but the estimate in the agency agreement was $1.1 to $1.2 million. The guidance was lifted from $1,025,000 during the marketing campaign.
The two bedroom terrace (below) actually sold for $1.07 million through Nic Krasnostein, so it appears, with benefit of hindsight, he may have been overly ambitious in his pitch to the vendor. It sold to an investor who sought to rent it out at $850 a week. It had previously sold at $610,000 in 2005.
<img src="/images/2015/03/16/surry%20hills%20mar%2016%20one.jpg" alt="">
The prosecutions were only the third in a decade.
“We believe we’ve found evidence to prove the agent has under quoted,” Commissioner Rod Stowe told The Sunday Telegraph who published a Warren cartoon too.
<img src="/images/2015/03/16/cartoon%20march%2016.jpg" alt="">
Source: Sunday Telegraph
Property Observer had previously reported possible underquoting activity from an undisclosed agency was under investigation.
Operation Balaya, an investigation specifically developed to look at real estate compliance, was launched on agencies operating in the inner-city.
Officers were also checking licences, certificates, current continuing professional development, professional indemnity insurance and current and past financial year qualified audits.
“During its inspections, NSW Fair Trading identified certain information that requires further investigation to establish whether or not representations made by a real estate agency in relation to a number of recent sales were misleading,” the then Minister for Fair Trading Matthew Mason-Cox said.
“Agents who engaged in this illegal practice could face a maximum penalty of $22,000 or depending on the severity of the breaches an agency could have its licence cancelled.”
The NSW Premier Mike Baird elevated the issue into an election policy.
The department has until June 3 to make a decision on any appeal.
“While the prosecution was taken under the old laws, the government is seeking urgent legal advice and consumers can be assured any legal loopholes will be closed,” it said.
</body></html>

BresicWhitney underquoting loophole let-off to trigger legislative amendment review

<html><body>
SPONSORED POST
The property landscape in Victoria is set for an overhaul with new laws to restrict underquoting practices. New regulations imposed by the Victorian Government intend to protect buyers and create a more transparent property market.
The new regulations require agents to be forthcoming with realistic estimates by providing at least three comparable sales to interested parties. The comparable sales reports will need to be for properties recently sold within the same area and demonstrate a likeness to their current listing.
Along with the new guidelines come harsher penalties for agents who disregard the need for quoting accuracy. A financial penalty of $28,000, double the existing fine, will be imposed, as well as forfeiture of any commission obtained from the sale.
With underquoting the cause of distress for many consumers, Victorian buyer agent <a href="https://wiserealestateadvice.com.au" target="_blank">WiseRealestateAdvice.com.au</a> Mark Ribarsky says that this is “a win for his clients and prospective purchasers everywhere”.
The changes will come as a relief to many people in the areas most affected by over quoting in recent years. Buyers in Box Hill, Vermont and Mount Waverly have faced underquoting resulting in sale prices of up to 33 percent above quoted estimates in recent years. 
The new mandates will provide buyers with a more realistic view of the houses they can afford to direct their time and energy into properties within their reach.
For more information, <a href="https://wiserealestateadvice.com.au" target="_blank">click here</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Underquoting overhaul in Victoria

<html><body>
Estate agents have been told an underquoting audit program will be conducted by NSW Fair Trading commencing today, Monday 7 March lasting for two weeks.
The program will target agents in both Sydney metropolitan and regional locations.
The inspectors will be looking at published advertisements and the Estimated Selling Price contained within agency agreements.  
They will also review and consider the evidence utilised in developing the estimated selling price.
The department has viewed the industry as coping well with the new laws and overall compliance. 
But in the first seven weeks since the laws were introduced on the 1 January 2016, Fair Trading received 68 complaints relating to underquoting. 
"Complaints are from named individuals, anonymous complainants and other real estate agents," a department spokesperson said.
To coincide with the new underquoting laws starting, Fair Trading ran a public awareness campaign to raise awareness and understanding among NSW real estate agents and consumers seeking to buy and sell residential property in NSW.
The campaign advertisements were run throughout January 2016 directing people to underquoting information on the Fair Trading website.
Fair Trading’s online display advertising delivered almost 1 million impressions.
A Facebook campaign was run concurrently with the digital advertising and generated more than 685,000 impressions. 
Fair Trading has information tailored specifically to support agents specifically, a publication was produced – <a href="https://fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/biz_res/ftweb/pdfs/About_us/Publications/Underquoting_guidelines_for_residential_property.pdf" target="_blank">Underquoting guidelines for residential property</a>, including a checklist to help agents with their obligations.  
Also, the mandatory fact sheet, which agents need to supply to sellers when entering into an agency agreement to sell their home, was updated to refer to the new underquoting laws. 
Fair Trading has conducted 119 agent education lessons following a review of more than 5000 advertisements. 
Fair Trading also issued two trader education letters for failing to comply with an undertaking to update advertisements. 
"Fair Trading will take action in regards to any future or ongoing contravention, which can include penalty infringement notices, and civil pecuniary penalties."
</body></html>

Underquoting estate agent blitz launched by NSW Fair Trading

<html><body>
Sydney may have forgotten Natalie Jean Wood. But Real Estate Agents haven’t forgotten to underquote; when it comes to auctioning a property.
I definitely have something to say about what I perceived may well be, blatant underquoting strategies used in the marketing of the Surry Hills property: 139 Kippax Street, <a href="/expert-insights/buying/surry-hills-terrace-listing-of-the-woman-sydney-forgot">the home once owned by Natalie Wood</a>.
It will take more than a coffee to calm me down, particularly after my client spent $4,000 doing Due Diligence (DD) prior to the auction.
The price guide that was given to me and other interested parties I spoke with at the time, was: $550,000-$650,000.
First cab off the rank, and to immediately dispel any misconceptions you may have. Misconceptions about me being a disgruntled buyer’s agent and particularly since I didn’t purchase the property, on behalf of my client.
<ol start="1">
<li>Part of the DD we undertook revealed that land in the area was worth approximately $10,000-$11,000/sqm.</li>
<li>There was some value in the building regardless of what the refurbishment works would cost, and</li>
<li>We were under no illusion that we would obtain the home for the lower end of the price guide which was given.</li>
</ol>
It’s not rocket science
It’s not rocket science to work out property (price-guide) values that are closer to true market values. To ascertain these we look at the following:
<ol start="1">
<li>Land value as compared to other sales in the local area.</li>
<li>Value of existing structure/building (taking into account what is required or not required to be altered, changed or fixed) and integrity of existing structure.</li>
<li>Aesthetic values including but not limited to: visual appeal, location, heritage, charm or story behind the property, views and surrounding landscape and demographics.</li>
<li>Calculate costs to repair/refurbish/build and compare with current properties on the market and recent property sales. properties that would be of similar ilk.</li>
<li>If still in doubt? call a professional valuer for their opinion.</li>
</ol>
Therefore, for an agent or agency to hide behind the worn and dated argument of “no comparable sales” is just sheer ignorance or intentional use of sleight of hand tactics. I have written about these issues previously.
1) The what-if test. 
2) Dumb to underquote and dumber not to know property values.
Dialogue with agency
Correspondence and conversations with the agent, all led us to believe that the agent truly didn’t know the value of the property. On the alternative, we also thought that there may be an underlying driver to draw a crowd. We know the latter to be under-quoting.
If other buyers were going to be persuaded by either one of the above premises, we believed that this would work in our favor.
The low-ball price-guide may actually keep the value of the property low, this is what we presumed anyway. We felt that the low price-guide coupled with the added features of the home; the circumstance of the deceased owner and the dilapidated condition of the property, was a mix that would work in our favor.
Nonetheless, our limit was set at $900,000 and this took into account our estimated land value as well as the intrinsic and heritage value of the property. Yes, and the history that came with the home.
Again, we knew that the agent was off the mark completely. However, the agent insisted that the “buyer’s feedback” was $550,000-$650,000 and with the interest obtained, it may reach the $700,000 mark. I beg to differ.
A professional agent would have done and assessed the value more along the lines of $850,000-$900,000 and thus presenting a correct price-guide. A guide that is not reliant on; “buyer’s feedback” nor left to ignorance. But, I was not engaged to teach them how to do their job.
Don't you just hate it, when you call an agent and ask for the 'price-guide' and they respond with: don't know at this point in time, once we hold a few opens we will gauge the "buyer's feedback". Get real !!! and moving on...
The outcome
Well, my buyer was not successful; as much as I tried to slow things down, there were others that wanted the property at all costs. The home sold for $1,105,000.
One may well say, ‘market forces’ were at play once the auction reached and went beyond the $950,000 mark. 
Warning to agents
Now, if you really want to accept the argument that: any so called out-of-line sale price is influenced by the lack of comparable sales to go by and play the ignorance card, or even take ill advice from vendors? Perhaps it’s time a Professional Valuer was called in, to assist you.
Obtaining and contracting the services of a valuer, is a better option to support and protect you as you. After all, you are the professional real estate agent. Don't hang your hat on statements such as: "market forces" nor "the vendor made me do it" in the belief that these will protect you from prosecution.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

Sydney may have forgotten Natalie Jean Wood, but real estate agents haven’t forgotten to underquote: Edwin Almeida 

<html><body>
Underquoting laws start from 1 January 2016. They apply to all residential properties for sale on or after 1 January 2016.
An agent is underquoting the selling price of a property if they make or publish a statement about its price that is less than their reasonable estimate of the property’s likely selling price that is contained in the agency agreement.
This is an offence under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (the Act). Agents face fines of up to $22,000 for failing to comply with the law. Agents may also lose their commission and fees earned from the sale of an underquoted property. These commissions and fee payments will go towards the Property Services Compensation Fund, which supports consumers who have experienced financial loss as a result of property agent misconduct.  
Know your responsibilities – read the Underquoting guidelines
Agents should make sure they are carrying out their new obligations by downloading Fair Trading’s <a href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/biz_res/ftweb/pdfs/About_us/Publications/Underquoting_guidelines_for_residential_property.pdf" target="_blank">Underquoting guidelines for residential property</a>.
<h1 class="bodyheading">Key requirements </h1>
An agent should never state or publish an estimated selling price that is less than what is in the agency agreement.
An estimated price communicated to sellers and potential buyers must represent what an agent reasonably believes a property is likely to sell for. An agent and seller can choosenot to publish or make any statement about the likely selling price of the property. However, if they do publish or make any statements about price, they must comply with the new requirements.
As an agent, you must:
<ul>
<li>
include your reasonable estimate of a property's likely selling price in the agency agreement (also called the sales agreement)</li>
<li>
provide evidence to the seller of how you estimated the selling price</li>
<li>
ensure the highest price in a price range does not exceed the lower price by more than 10% (for example, $500,000-$550,000)</li>
<li>
record in writing statements made about the price while a property is marketed</li>
<li>
ensure your estimated selling price remains reasonable by:</li>
<li>
revising it as soon as you know (or should be aware) of evidence or circumstances that changes it
</li>
<li>
notifying the seller of the revised price
</li>
<li>
amending the agency agreement with the revised estimate
</li>
<li>take all reasonable steps as soon as is practical to update any marketing of the property with the revised estimated selling price.</li>
</ul>
You must not:
<ul>
<li>
provide any price estimate less than what you have reasonably estimated that a property is worth (as recorded in the agency agreement with the seller) - this applies to advertising the property or in any communication with prospective buyers about the property's likely selling price</li>
<li>
use any statements such as "offers above" or "offers over" an amount, or "plus" a particular price (for example, $500,000+), which could underquote or obscure a property's estimated value.</li>
</ul>
 
<h1 class="bodyheading">Questions and answers about underquoting </h1>
<h1 class="bodyheading">Do the laws apply to properties sold before 1 January 2016? </h1>
No. The underquoting requirements apply to all residential properties for sale on 1 January 2016 and into the future. However, if you have already entered into an agency agreement with a seller before 1 January 2016 and the agreement is still operating, then you will not have to comply with the requirement to update your estimated selling price, however you may wish to do this as a matter of good practice.
You must still comply with all other requirements for advertising and making statements about your estimated selling price as it currently appears in the agency agreement, as well as all the new record keeping requirements. That means that if you have properties advertised for sale at a price that is less than the estimated selling price in your agency agreement, then you must take all reasonable steps, as soon as is practical, to change or withdraw those advertisements. This includes flyers and any other printed material and all online material.
All agency agreements entered into on or after 1 January 2016 must comply with all the new requirements.
<a class="gotop" href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Property_agents_and_managers/Agency_responsibilities/Underquoting.page#top">I used to advertise ‘offers over $890K’ for a property when my estimated selling price was $900,000-$990,000. Can’t I do this?  </a>
No. Statements such as ‘offers over $890K’ and other statements like ‘offers above’ or ‘$890K plus’ do not provide buyers with enough information to determine whether the property is within their price range. At worst, such statements can mislead buyers by indicating that a property could likely sell for the minimum offer advertised when the property will likely sell for much higher.
Remember that from 1 January 2016, you must not:
<ul>
<li>do any advertising that includes such references (for example ‘offers above $900,000’, ‘offers over $900,000’ or ‘$900,000+’)</li>
<li>indicate a selling price that is any lower than the reasonable estimated selling price as recorded in the agency agreement.</li>
</ul>
The requirements make sure consumers don’t waste money and time on property inspections by banning any price information that underquotes an agent’s estimated selling price.
<a class="aname" name="The_seller_wants_me_to_advertise_a_lower_price_than_the_estimated_selling_price_to_attract_market_interest._What_should_I_do?" href=""></a>
<h2>The seller wants me to advertise a lower price than the estimated selling price to attract market interest. What should I do? </h2>
You should make sure that the seller is aware of your legal obligations to never indicate a selling price lower than your estimated selling price. Your role is to get the seller the highest possible price for the property through fair, effective marketing and enabling competition between buyers for whom the property is likely to be affordable.  
You may wish to direct the seller you represent to the Fair Trading website or supply them with Fair Trading information on the underquoting reforms. This should help them to understand the purpose of the underquoting laws and the consequences if you illegally underquote a property.
You must also take the time to explain how you arrived at the estimated selling price for their property and provide evidence for why this is a reasonable estimate of the likely selling price.
<a class="aname" name="What_if_the_seller_wants_more_than_I_think_is_the_estimated_selling_price?" href=""></a>
<h2>What if the seller wants more than I think is the estimated selling price? </h2>
If the seller wants to sell the property for more than your estimated selling price, you may choose to:
<ul>
<li>advertise at a higher price that meets the seller’s instructions. or</li>
<li>decide not to disclose any price.</li>
</ul>
As long as you do not advertise or disclose any price that is less than the estimated selling price in the agency agreement, then underquoting has not occurred.
You should also let the seller know that the following pricing statements may be considered false or misleading under the Australian Consumer Law:
<ul>
<li>quoting the estimated selling price where the seller has advised that they will only sell for a higher price or</li>
<li>advertising a property at a price that is less than a previously rejected offer (unless the seller is now prepared to accept a lower offer).</li>
</ul>
<a class="aname" name="Why_does_the_estimated_selling_price_need_to_be_up-to-date?_" href=""></a>
<h2>Why does the estimated selling price need to be up-to-date?  </h2>
The laws recognise the dynamic market forces in the real estate sector and require agents to review and amend their estimate in line with market feedback and other relevant factors impacting a property's likely selling price.
Agents must not continue to market a property at an estimated selling price that they know, or should know, is no longer a reasonable estimate. Agents must: notify the seller if they revise their estimated selling price, provide evidence of the reasonableness of the revised estimate, amend the agency agreement (the seller’s consent is not required to do this) and take all reasonable steps to update their marketing materials as soon as is practical.
<a class="gotop" href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Property_agents_and_managers/Agency_responsibilities/Underquoting.page#top" style="line-height: 1.3em;">What should I consider a reliable offer, and when should it influence the estimated selling price?  </a>
You should request all offers in writing. If you consider that any offer or offers received changes the likely selling price of the property, you should revise your estimated selling price. Be sure to amend the agency agreement and advise the seller in writing, providing them with the evidence of the reasonableness of your revised price estimate.  
The local newspaper has gone to print with my previous estimated selling price. Am I breaching the laws? <a class="gotop" href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Property_agents_and_managers/Agency_responsibilities/Underquoting.page#top"></a>
Certain updates may not be possible but you must be able to demonstrate that you have made reasonable attempts to update any marketing material that no longer shows your reasonable estimated selling price.
It may not be practical to retract published newspaper advertising. However, if you have the opportunity to update price information before it is printed, or can update any online marketing for the property, you must do so as soon as is practical.
<a class="aname" name="How_can_I_market_multi-unit_residential_property_or_multi-lot_residential_subdivisions?" href=""></a>
<h2>How can I market multi-unit residential property or multi-lot residential subdivisions? </h2>
If you give any price indication about the properties’ likely selling prices, any advertising you do must include the following: the estimated selling prices for the lowest and highest priced properties in each category of unit (eg. studio, one bedroom, two bedroom etc.).
Advertisements for multi-unit property marketed collectively can do this in two ways:
<ul>
<li>giving the price ranges for each category, with the low end of the range being the estimated selling price of the lowest priced unit in the category and the higher end of the range being the most expensive property in that category. For example: one bedroom units available - price range: $550K-$700K. In this example, $550K represents the estimated selling price of the lowest priced one bedroom unit and $700K is the estimated selling price of the highest priced one-bedroom unit. This would need to be done for each category.  or </li>
<li>stating the estimated selling price in the agency agreement of the lowest and highest priced units for each property category (instead of using the ‘range method’ above). For example: one bedroom units available - the lowest priced unit is $550K, the highest priced unit is $700K; two bedroom units available - the lowest priced unit is $700K, the highest priced unit is $900K.</li>
</ul>
Note that the range advertising method described above is for properties being marketed collectively. Therefore, it does not breach the requirement related to estimated selling prices expressed as a range, which is for single properties.
Multi-lot subdivisions would need to include the lowest priced lot and the highest priced lot.
Any collective marketing of residential units/lots that includes a price indication should also advise prospective buyers that there are multiple properties within each category, of varying prices within that range.
To avoid underquoting, all advertising and marketing must be updated to reflect the value of the new lowest price unit/lot available when:
<ul>
<li>the lowest priced unit/lot is sold  or</li>
<li>the last of the lowest priced units in the price range for a particular category is sold.</li>
</ul>
Be aware that some previous practices are now illegal, such as a billboard promoting off-the-plan residential property that states: 'From $400,000'.
Also, it would be against the law to promote a range such as 'property available from $400K-$2.2M'. This does not give a meaningful indication of the price ranges for each category of residential units/lots being collectively marketed.     
<a class="aname" name="Can_I_choose_not_to_reveal_a_price_when_collectively_marketing_multi-unit_residential_property_or_multi-lot_subdivisions?_" href=""></a>
<h2>Can I choose not to reveal a price when collectively marketing multi-unit residential property or multi-lot subdivisions?  </h2>
Yes. Potential buyers can simply be advised to contact the agent for further information. Remember that agents cannot give any price indication (verbal, written or advertised) for a property that is LESS than that specific property’s evidence-based estimated selling price.
<a class="aname" name="How_should_I_record_estimated_selling_prices_for_multi-unit_property_and_multi-lot_subdivisions?_" href=""></a>
<h2>How should I record estimated selling prices for multi-unit property and multi-lot subdivisions?  </h2>
Attached to the agency agreement, the agent may include a schedule of the lots with their individual prices, or properties available with their features (primarily bedroom numbers) and a price for each. Any prices included in the schedule cannot be less than the estimated selling price for each unit/lot.
<a class="aname" name="What_if_I_am_unfairly_accused_of_underquoting?" href=""></a>
<h2>What if I am unfairly accused of underquoting? </h2>
To help consumers understand what underquoting is, you can direct them to the <a href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/About_us/Legislation/Changes_to_legislation/Underquoting_reforms.page" target="_blank">Underquoting reforms</a> web page on the Fair Trading website. This will give them an overview of the new laws and point them to the information relevant to them.
Consumers can also speak to a Fair Trading officer on 13 32 20.
If you have complied with all the requirements expected of agents under the Act, then you will not be at risk of breaching the underquoting laws.
<a class="aname" name="What_will_happen_if_Fair_Trading_determines_that_I_have_underquoted?_" href=""></a>
<h2>What will happen if Fair Trading determines that I have underquoted?  </h2>
Fair Trading can issue you with a penalty infringement notice of $2,200. Depending on the circumstances it could also be grounds for Fair Trading to take further disciplinary action on your licence. If the matter is prosecuted and you are found guilty of underquoting, you will pay a fine of up to $22,000. You may also lose the full commission and any fees for the property or properties you have underquoted.  
<a class="aname" name="What_about_when_I_talk_to_a_potential_purchaser_on_the_phone_or_at_an_open_house?" href=""></a>
<h2>What about when I talk to a potential purchaser on the phone or at an open house? </h2>
If you make a statement about a residential property’s likely selling price in marketing that property to a buyer, potential buyer, seller or potential seller, you must make a written record of the statement.
The record of the statement must contain:
<ul>
<li>the address of the property concerned</li>
<li>the price or price range</li>
<li>the date and time of the statement.
</li>
</ul>
For more information, <a href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/About_us/Legislation/Changes_to_legislation/Underquoting_reforms.page" target="_blank">click here</a>.
</body></html>

Underquoting

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Underquoting

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News