Unsatisfactory conduct decisions

These are the unsatisfactory conduct decisions published since the previous newsletter (10 July 2017)

​​Complaint number ​Overview ​Penalty
C16005 Licensee 1 engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under section 72(b) of the Act when she, by incorrectly pointing out to the complainant-purchasers the boundary line, misled them into believing a not inconsequential piece of land would be available for their use, thus breaching rule 6.4 of the 2012 Rules. Licensee 1’s fundamental error in incorrectly interpreting the property title also falls short of the standard the public can expect from a reasonably competent licensee, and so licensee 1 also engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under section 72(a) of the Act. Licensee 2 engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under section 72(b) of the Act when he failed to adequately supervise licensee 1, thus breaching section 50 of the Act. Censure / Fine of $3,500.00
​C14961 ​Licensee 1 engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under section 72(b) of the Act when she, by incorrectly pointing out to the complainant-purchasers the boundary line, misled them into believing a not inconsequential piece of land would be available for their use, thus breaching rule 6.4 of the 2012 Rules. Licensee 1’s fundamental error in incorrectly interpreting the property title also falls short of the standard the public can expect from a reasonably competent licensee, and so licensee 1 also engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under section 72(a) of the Act. Licensee 2 engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under section 72(b) of the Act when he failed to adequately supervise licensee 1, thus breaching section 50 of the Act. ​Censure / Fine of $2,500.00
​C16454 ​The licensee engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under sections 72(a) and 72(d) of the Act when he made the decision to not include a date in an inserted clause in the sale and purchase agreement, which relied on the purchaser’s sale becoming unconditional. The licensee breached rule 9.9 of the 2012 Rules when he submitted an agreement for sale and purchase without inserting all material particulars, in this case the date by which the purchaser’s own property must become unconditional, and as such also engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under section 72(b) of the Act. ​Censure Refund fees charged to the amount of $2,500.00 Fine of $1,000.00
​C16156 ​The licensee breached rules 5.1, 6.4, and 10.7 of the 2012 Rules when she failed to disclose important information, specifically a liquefaction study and civil engineer’s report, to the purchaser, thus denying him the opportunity to assess the information and the implications of the two studies in his decision to purchase. As such, the licensee engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under sections 72(a) and 72(b) of the Act. ​Censure / Fine of $3,000.00 / Further training, being either US23136 or US23138 
​​
 ​​​​