There is much to do about unfair bidding practices by real estate agents. On the website of Dispute Committee, anyone can read the rulings of the Disciplinary Committee for Real Estate Professionals regarding, among other things, wrongdoing by brokers. These are then cases that have not been dealt with by the Complaints Desk Real Estate Professionals. What is striking is that there are actually no disciplinary cases about unfair bidding practices by real estate agents. I am really talking about unfair treatment (passing on the height of bids), bids after the deadline or overbids after the house was already sold verbally or by mail. This is quite striking because unfair bidding practices have been a hot topic and sensitive issue for years. In this article, I’ll explain how this is the case.
The Complaint Desk versus the Disciplinary Committee.
First, we need to explain to you the procedure for getting to the disciplinary committee. If you have a complaint about a broker (for example, about unfair bidding practices), you must first try to resolve it with the broker in question himself. If you are unable to resolve it, you must first go through the entire complaints procedure of the Complaints Desk for Real Estate Professionals, and if you have made no progress there, only then may you report to the Disciplinary Committee for Real Estate Professionals. If the real estate agent in question is not a member of NVM, VBO or VastgoedPro, you cannot even do the above. In that case, you can only initiate civil proceedings (which, incidentally, are doomed to failure in advance).
The Real Estate Professionals Disciplinary Committee and sanctions
The Disciplinary Committee for Real Estate Professionals deals with complaints about the actions or omissions of the real estate professional that, for example, conflict with the code of conduct or honor code as drawn up by the branch organization (NVM, VBO or VastgoedPro) to which he is affiliated. This does not require a contractual basis between the litigants. So it can be about a dispute for which no arrangements have been made in the agreement between broker and client. An example of these disputes are unfair bidding practices by brokers. This disciplinary committee can impose sanctions on brokers who violate, among other things, the code of conduct or honor code that they must follow from their trade association.
Can a broker be disciplined for unfair bidding practices?
That will depend on the case of what is going on. We (writer of this article) do not know, because we are not the Disciplinary Committee. It will vary from case to case. But as an example, let’s say a real estate agent secretly shares the amount of 1 or more bids with 1 or more other prospective buyers. Then this is completely contrary to the code of conduct or honor code of the trade associations (see here, here and here). If you can prove that this has happened, in our opinion you will have a good chance that the broker in question will be reprimanded by the disciplinary committee.
So why are there no disciplinary rulings on unfair bidding practices?
For this article, among others, we consulted many sources and also contacted the Disputes Committee, NVM and VBO. We think there are several explanations for this. First of all, not every complaint will make it to the Disciplinary Committee.
- Possibly the complainant and broker are already making up with each other. The complainant should first give the broker 1 month to resolve this.
- It may also be that telephone advice with the Real Estate Professionals Complaint Desk already leads to the discontinuation of further proceedings because after that one feels more heard and no longer has an urge to continue.
- The complainant is required to go through the entire complaint procedure first. And please note that this takes an average of 22 weeks! Source here. That takes almost half a year! After such a long time, already a lot can cool down in an angry person.
- When it comes to a culpable thing like a broker leaking the amount of bids, it can be very difficult to prove.
- Furthermore, a lot of “unfair bidding practices” may seem unfair in the eyes of the consumer, but the broker’s actions are quite defensible under disciplinary law. For example, suppose a real estate agent receives a higher bid after the close of bids or even after a verbal sale, he is obliged to pass it on to his client (also in accordance with the honor code/code of conduct). The seller ultimately decides and as long as no purchase agreement has been signed, everything is actually still open. What the broker must do, however, is work transparently and professionally. It is daily practice that the aforementioned things happen and real estate agents are really not happy about this when it happens. But as long as the real estate agent continues to act properly and professionally in accordance with the applicable code of conduct/erecode even in such cases, he/she will (in our opinion) not be reproached.
- Finally, it may be (seems very unlikely to us) that the particular ruling has not been published. In fact, the Dispute Resolution Committee states that they do publish rulings online as much as possible. About this, they say: ” We try to publish as many statements as possible, but not everything is already online. If people are looking for a ruling or topic, we may be able to provide it to them. Of course, always anonymized. “
Conclusion
Unfair bidding practices can only be dealt with by the Disciplinary Committee for Real Estate Professionals, and to get here first involves a very long preliminary process. First, the complainant must give the broker 1 month to resolve it together and then the complainant enters a mandatory 22-week grievance procedure. So in total you are already almost 32 weeks away. Furthermore, the burden of proof can be difficult either that it was not unfair bidding practices, but unpleasant bidding practices. The difference between unfair bidding practices and obnoxious bidding practices is that unfair is not allowed and obnoxious may have gone (largely) as the broker should have acted, but are nonetheless not nice for the plaintiff.
