Three members of Dunedin's Sievwright real estate family and employer Edinburgh Realty have been censured and collectively fined more than $17,000 for ''unsatisfactory conduct'' by the Real Estate Agents Authority (REAA).
The decision, published last week, is under appeal by the Sievwrights and Edinburgh.
Barclay Sievwright and sons Lane and Clayton were censured for ''unsatisfactory conduct'' and fined $3750.
Edinburgh Realty was similarly censured and fined $6000.
Another real estate agent, Matthew Shepherd, was censured. Barclay Sievwright said, when contacted, an appeal had been lodged, covering all cited parties, but no date for a hearing had been set.
When asked about the grounds of appeal, Mr Sievwright said he had had legal advice the REAA had been ''wrong in their finding''.
Edinburgh Realty general manager Mark Miller
said because the matter was subject to appeal ''any public comment at this time would be inappropriate''.
''The appeal will be vigorously pursued by Edinburgh Realty, who, subsequent to the appeal hearing and decision, would be happy to answer any media questions,'' he said.
The issue before the REAA was a transaction over the sale of a residential house owned by the Sievwright's Family Trust, of which Mr Sievwright was the trust settlor, and was the beneficiary, along with his wife and sons Lane and Clayton, the REAA decision report stated.
The Dunedin property was bought by the family trust in September 2006.
It was sold to the complainant in November 2009, by Edinburgh Realty, and she moved in.
She sold the property for $237,000 in July 2011, and laid the complaint with the REAAin July 2012.
The REAA said the first aspect of the complaint was that it was not disclosed to her that agents carrying out the work might benefit from the transaction.
''The [REAA] committee finds this aspect of the complaint proved against Lane, Clayton, and Barclay and also against Edinburgh Realty Ltd,'' the decision said.
The REAA dismissed complaints relating to the condition of the house, a building inspection and that Edinburgh failed to adequately deal with the complainant's concerns.
The REAA found Edinburgh Realty had been in breach of rule 9.5, in failing to obtain an appraisal of the property for the family trust.
Similarly, the REAA found the Sievwrights and Edinburgh Realty had breached rule 9.15 in that they actively marketed the property without holding an agency agreement, signed by the family trust.
