THE LAND AGENTS’ ANSWER.

Southland Times, Issue 20220, 4 July 1927, Page 11

THE LAND AGENTS’ ANSWER.

To the Editor. Sir, —Our attention has been drawn to the very unfair letter published in your paper this morning above the signature of “Veritas.” Usually one ignores letters where the writer shelters under a “nom de plume,” but the statements made in this letter are so sweeping, and so defamatory to our profession that we feel impelled to enter our emphatic protest against them. You, Sir, have put the position in a nutshell when you ask whether it is “quite fair to attack all land agents because one or two may have appeared unscrupulous.” We quite freely admit that amongst land agents, just as amongst medical practitioners, solicitors, or even ministers of religion, there are men who are untrue to the highest ideals of their profession. There may have been, even in Southland, isolated cases where land agents have gone very near the edge, or perhaps over the line dividing fair from unfair dealing. But, granting this, is it just for your correspondent to attempt to besmirch land agents as a class? Can “Veritas” deny that the chief asset of the great majority of real estate agents is nothing more or less than their reputation for straight-forward dealing? Buyers go to them to do business because they believe they will be treated honourably and fairly. It must be borne in mind that, in the case pf a genuine real estate agent, he is merely the agent of the seller, and as such has, or (unless he first disclose it to the buyer) should have, no interest in the property being sold. All that he has at stake is his commission, and he is unlikely, for the sake of this, to descend to fraudulent, or “sharking” tactics, or to risk losing his reputation for square dealing. It would seem that “Veritas” is really voicing a complaint, not so much against land agents as against the “jerry” builder. The “jerry’-builder has, fortunately, not much opportunity of “getting away with it” in Invercargill where building regulations and municipal inspection have been introduced expressly for the purpose of coping with this evil. We offer no excuses, or hold no brief, for the jerry-builder, but surely there is a duty cast upon the “innocent” buyer to thoroughly investigate the statement made by the seller or his agent and also to closely inspect the property itself before purchasing. If he neglects ordinary precautions the buyer must certainly be held to blame, almost equally with the dishonest builder. It may interest “Veritas” to know that the “Real Estate Institute of New Zealand” was formed a few years ago (with branches in the chief centres) with the object of placing the land agency business throughout the Dominion upon a proper basis, and to exclude, as far as possible, from its profession, those whc are undesirable in character or lacking in business ability. The splendid work being done by the institute was recently demonstrated in a northern city w’here the executive of the local branch objected to the granting of a land agent’s license to a certain individual, and the objection w T as sustained by the magistrate. In this connection we cannot do better than quote the objects of the Southland Branch of the Institute, as set out in its constitution. Inter alia, these are—“(a) To improve the status of the business of land agents, and auctioneers, and to promote, by intercourse, a good feeling among the members themselves; (c) The settlement of disputes between members themselves by reference of disputed cases of commission to the executive as arbitrators, and the control of litigation between members and their clients by reference of disputed cases of commission to the executive, for the purpose of preliminary inquiry, and in cases of mutual agreement by arbitrating between members and their clients; (d) To take any action deemed by the institute to be for the common good of members and, in particular, ... to guard the interests of the members by the control and regulation of the practice of the business of land agents and auctioneers; (e) The protection of the general public in their dealings with agents and auctioneers.” Linked up with the Southland Branch of the Institute there are 27 firms, and the names of these will be furnished to “Veritas” or any other aggrieved person upon application being made to the secretary (Mr E. E. Boyd, No. 7 Arcade). If “Veritas,” or any other person, has any

complaint to make against any member of the local institute he should write to the secretary setting forth the nature of his grievance, when same will immediately he considered by the executive and dealt with according to its rules. If the complaint be against someone who is not a member of the institute, the executive may not have jurisdiction, but will nevertheless use its influence to obtain redress, if satisfied that an injustice has been done. The above has been considered by the whole of the Invercargill members of the executive and they have signified their approval of this statement. —We are, etc., JOHN T. CARSWELL, President E. E. BOYD, Secretary The Real Estate Institute of Southland (Incorporated).