28/10/2022
Who would've known, the Real Estate Agents Authority doesn't like 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙪𝙩 on their questionable practice of paying bonuses to the CEO, it just 𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣:
"𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘌𝘖 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩?"
REA Conflict of Interest, does it Breach Human Rights?
Would paying bonuses to key Real Estate Authority staff for reaching financial targets through fining agents represent a conflict of interest?
How can the industry have confidence in an Authority, if that Authority benefits financially from turning every complaint into a guilty finding, fining the agent and then paying staff bonuses for increased revenue performance.
On the 6th of April 2022 I wrote to the CEO of the REA asking if she was confident that an independent inquiry into the standard of REA investigations would withstand rigourous review.
She replied on the 7th April;
“Kia ora Mike I acknowledge receipt of this message. I am looking into the issues you have raised and will respond in more detail shortly. Nga mihi Belinda” [Belinda Moffat CEO, REA, NZ]
3 weeks on and there's no further response... ironic, considering the authority would never accept this as a reasonable timeframe to reply to a serious complaint from a consumer to a licensee.  Double standards?
(Email [email protected], for a copy of that letter and further correspondence, updates and more. Emails received in the strictest of confidence) 
I further asked Ms Moffat if she felt REA investigations into complaints against Licensees meet the standard our industry could reasonably expect.
Are the REA investigators suitably qualified given the importance of these matters, and the risk to the emotional and mental well-being of licensees, particularly given the potential for unjustified reputational damage caused by vexatious real estate complaints that are poorly investigated?
In essence, Ms Moffat needs to consider whether the REA could successfully defend a legal challenge which claims investigators are failing licensees with substandard investigations.
Failing to investigate complaints to a standard that addresses the enormous conflict of interest that exists, exposes the REA to this very real risk.
To be clear, the risk is REA investigators potentially focusing on winning (on behalf of complainants) in order to get guilty findings generating fines, as opposed to the more important question; what is just?
Anything less than a top-shelf investigation into every complaint is unsatisfactory, and exposes every guilty finding of the REA (from the date of its inception) to review and compensation where an investigation is found to be substandard.
Real estate is a government licensed profession that relies heavily on reputation, and a substandard investigation causing loss of reputation would be unconstitutional.
My legal opinion informs that; “the ease at which the industry can identify substandard investigations, and the sheer volume of poorly investigated complaints, simply exposes the REA to the threat of legal action claiming losses and damages to income, reputation and other unacceptable impacts on licensees, as a result of investigations that fell well short of any standard that could be reasonably accepted, since the REA's inception in 2011 [sic]”.
That’s sobering advice the authority needs to heed.
Surely, It’s more important to ensure the investigations are beyond reproach given the conflict of interest that exists, there can be no question marks hanging over any investigations. They simply must be able to withstand rigorous examination.
The REA needs to apply the same standards of rigorous examination they apply when investigating complaints with the potential view to raising money for bonuses.
If a complaint is made against a licensee and the investigators primary focus is on securing a fine, there is a very real risk they may fail to consider (or even identify) critical information that may dramatically impact the finding..
Poor investigations result in decisions to inquire, forcing agents to endure unreasonable pathways that they should never have been forced to endure and costing them large sums of money defending their personal integrity and reputation. Unacceptable REA..
Once the investigators set the process in motion, an agent should prepare for at least 2 years of trauma, come to terms with the related reputational damage and brace themselves for a significant loss of income due to the time required to untangle the investigative debacle and the reputational damage caused, even when they are eventually absolved
For any consumers of Real Estate that do not believe this impacts consumers of Real Estate, think again. Taxes levied against agents in the guise of fines that potentaly pay fat cats in Wellington bonuses, simply increase the costs of Real Estate transactions in New Zealand… full stop! 
Background, I recently retired from the Real Estate industry after 20 very successful years with an unblemished record, although the REA is working hard to change that right now, because I’ve been challenging them 😂😂
Everybody told me not to take on the government, of which the REA is a function of, however the government needs to be taken on, they are out of control.
Lets play.... Game on
