Authority to review estate agent’s acts
Questions are being asked about how much prominent Napier real estate agent Simon Tremain knew of serious building defects before an apartment was sold to an unsuspecting couple.
Tremain is the principal of Tremains Real Estate, the company founded by his father, All Black Kel Tremain, in the 1970s.
In 2016 an agent working for Tremains, Marlene Nathan, was fined $5000 for failing to tell buyers Christopher and Marcia Wouldes about the full extent of problems with the Humber St apartments in Napier.
The complex is one of two large apartment blocks in the suburb of Ahuriri embroiled in a ‘‘leaky building’’ High Court claim involving the Napier City Council.
The Real Estate Agents’ Authority complaints assessment committee found Nathan, who sold the couple an apartment in March 2014, had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct.
The authority decided to take no action against Tremain, after he told it he had no knowledge of a 2010 building report that listed a raft of serious issues.
But the Wouldes weren’t happy with the decision, and appealed to the Real Estate Agents’ Disciplinary Tribunal. It heard that, after the authority issued its decision, the couple obtained documents that had been sent to Tremain in late 2011.
They included a letter from the Langley Twigg law firm, which referred to a 2009 report by Hawke’s Bay Building Certifiers and Consultants Ltd, which listed serious building issues.
The letter, sent by fax on November 23, 2011, informed Tremain there was the possibility of further issues with the complex, and ‘‘full disclosure of the building defects should be made to each of the unit owners’’.
Christopher Wouldes told the tribunal that a fax transaction report showed the letter and building report had been sent to Tremain, and he should have ensured all salespeople engaged in marketing apartments in the complex were made aware of them, and they should have disclosed the contents to prospective buyers.
Wouldes also claimed Tremain’s statement to the authority about his knowledge of defects was false. Tremain had owned an apartment in the block from 2006 to 2015, and it was ‘‘inconceivable’’ he was not aware of the building report, Wouldes said.
Tremain’s lawyer, Tim Rea, told the tribunal his client had no recollection of the building report, or the Langley Twigg letter, although he was aware of issues affecting the building, and he disclosed these to the buyers of his apartment. Rea also said Tremain had no involvement in the sale of the apartment to the Wouldes.
The tribunal found that, if the building report and the Langley Twigg letter had been available to the authority committee, there was ‘‘no doubt’’ they would have been considered in the course of its investigation into Tremain.
In its decision last month, the tribunal said the correct course of action was to refer the committee’s decision back to the committee for reconsideration. It said the committee might wish to consider a tribunal observation made in another decision, in which it expressed concern that a salesperson had not passed on relevant information to another salesperson for the common good of all parties.
The Wouldes‘ appeal was allowed, and the decision referred back to the committee for reconsideration
Yesterday, Tremain said he was seeking legal advice, but the authority decision found he had nothing to answer to, and he was ‘‘confident that the original decision will stand’’.
Nathan also appealed against the authority’s decision. The tribunal found the authority had not taken into account her previously unblemished record, and reduced her fine to $4000.
The Wouldes did not wish to comment.