Two Auckland real estate agents have been found guilty of misconduct but not forgery after inserting the signatures and initials of vendors taken from previous documents onto a new offer without their consent.

The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal decision released in November related to a sale and purchase agreement in February 2021, brokered by Barfoot and Thompson’s agents, Xiao Barry He and Dongni Anthony An.

An initial sale and purchase agreement was signed by the purchasers and the vendors of the property, however the deal fell through when the buyers failed to meet the finance condition.

The agreement was subsequently amended by He and An so the purchasers could make a back-up offer on the property as it was already under contract.

However, new signatures and initials from all parties involved were not obtained. Instead, the signatures from the initial agreement remained, and a new date and the initials of both parties were electronically inserted.

The property was sold to other buyers, so the back-up agreement was not successfully accepted.

The vendors, who had not seen the agreement, requested a copy and realised their initials and signatures were added to the amended agreement without their consent.

They laid a complaint with the agency, which then reported it to the Real Estate Authority.

An independent Complaints Assessment Committee (Committee) was appointed and inquired into the allegations, resulting in an investigation of the case.

The committee filed charges in the Tribunal under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, alleging misconduct.

He accepted he engaged in unsatisfactory conduct by not removing the signatures of the vendors from the agreement prior to sending the backup to An but denied the conduct amounted to seriously negligent or incompetent real estate agency work.

It was ruled An was experienced enough to know what he was doing was wrong when he inserted the initials at the backup clause and his failure to take any steps to check with the parties whether he was acting correctly in inserting the initials was to be taken seriously.

Although An’s actions were a serious departure from the standards required of an agent under the act, the tribunal was not satisfied his actions were dishonest.

It ruled his conduct constituted seriously negligent or incompetent real estate agency work pursuant to the act and An guilty of seriously negligent real estate agency work.

He was fined $10,000 and censured while An was fined $4000 and was also censured.

In its decision, the tribunal noted the conduct was “not a deliberate or dishonest act of forgery” but constituted seriously negligent or incompetent real estate work under the Real Estate Agents Act.

Real Estate Authority chief executive Belinda Moffat said the case highlighted the importance of licensees upholding high standards of professional competence and conduct across all real estate agency work.

“The Code of Conduct says a licensee must exercise skill, care, competence, and diligence at all times when carrying out real estate agency work,” Moffat said.

“Proper procedure around signatures and initials on documents throughout the transaction process, including during offer negotiations, is fundamental to that care and competence.”

Moffat said she hoped the decision would serve both as a reminder to real estate licensees and as a reassurance to consumers that if the fundamental standards of conduct were not maintained, the regulatory system enabled those who fell short to be held to account.

- Leighton Keith and Caitlan Johnston, Opem Justice