A real estate agent who gave a first-home buyer incorrect
information has been found guilty of "sloppy and
The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal found Ram
Vinodh, of Don Ha Real Estate, guilty of unsatisfactory
The decision relates to Mr Vinodh's actions in 2010 when he
was selling 10 Andover Way, Manukau.
The tribunal found he provided false information about the
property's address, which led to buyer Michael Hawes
believing he was buying the house next door.
In May 2010, Mr Vinodh arranged to meet Mr Hawes at 12
Andover Way for a viewing. That was the number on the
letterbox and on the fence.
He was told the CV was $450,000 and the list price $479,000.
However, the property he viewed was actually 10 Andover Way -
the house was incorrectly labelled.
Later that month, Mr Hawes made an offer to buy the property
for $430,000, but while the agreement for sale and purchase
contained the address of 12 Andover Way, the legal
description was for number 10.
The sale price was conditionally agreed at $435,000, but when
he received the LIM report, Mr Hawes discovered the names of
the owners on the title were not the same as the vendors on
the sale and purchase agreement.
It was revealed that the post boxes for numbers 10 and 12 had
been incorrectly placed and that the current valuation for 10
Andover Way (the property he wanted to buy) was $420,000, not
$450,000, said the finding.
Mr Hawes realised the mistake and said he did not want to
proceed, but his lawyer told him he was bound to complete the
Giving evidence through a Hindi interpreter - because he
wanted to be sure he fully understood the questions - Mr
Vinodh said the only incorrect information on the agreement
was the street address number, which was wrongly recorded by
The tribunal found it "undeniable" that Mr Vinodh had put the
wrong address on the sale and purchase agreement and he was
found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct.
"Clearly Mr Hawes thought he was purchasing 12 Andover Way
and was [likely] to have been (and was) unaware of the fact
that the legal description was not for 12 ..."
The tribunal dismissed two other charges against Mr Vinodh of
reckless conduct or wilful misconduct.
A penalty has not been decided.
The tribunal suggested Mr Vinodh complete an English test to
show he is at the required standard.