I refer to the article of January 10, 2011 of ‘Application forms for 125 real estate agents are missing’. This reflects how unprepared the Council of Real Estate Agencies (CEA) is to assume the role of regulator. Yes of course, the easiest way to say that is at a ‘teeth’ or ‘human error’ stage. If the system (technology, human resources, administration, clarity of rules, etc.) in the CEA is not ready, why take the baton?

Although the government agency acknowledged problems such as missing forms and registration delays, and apologized for the inconvenience caused. The CEA has also said that ‘as a gesture of goodwill’, 813 of the 1,736 estate agents whose applications are pending approval can act provisionally until the end of this month. It is not a gesture of good will, but to cover up or compensate for the error. ‘A gesture of goodwill’ does not come in this form.

In addition to misplacing application forms, there has been massive inconsistency and confusion since CEA took office on October 22, 2010. Some agencies and their agents were given a license validity period of only 2 years, while others agencies and their agents received 3 years. of validity period. Why is this so? What is the basis? Why is this not mentioned in the application form?

Some agents who received a 2-year license validity period got CEHA (Common Examination for Real Estate Agents) certified, which is much more difficult than CES (Common Examination for Sellers) and CEA (Certified Real Estate Agent Examination). .

Other inconsistencies, gaps and confusions such as the following rules, stipulated by the CEA on page 19, third annex, model 1 of the REAL ESTATE AGENCY CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY

Rule 4 allowing customers the option of not paying GST is impressive. This allows customers an excuse not to pay GST. You must state, ‘Payment of GST is mandatory for GST registered agencies’.

Part b of this rule also states that the seller is not required to pay any commission to the real estate agent if the property transaction is not completed through no fault of the seller. The seller must pay half of the deposit that the buyer made, in case the transaction is not completed, since the agent has insured the deposit.

Rule 6(b) indicates that the real estate agent has the option not to be co-broke, which means that it completely contradicts your ‘no dual representation’ rule.

If CEA is so adamant on the ‘No Dual Representation’ rule and that agents representing buyers and tenants must receive a commission from buyers and tenants, CEA please officially legalize and educate the public that buyers and tenants they should commission their agents representatives.

Last, but really certainly not least (since there are many other inconsistencies and loopholes in the rules). Please CEA be on the ground and really understand the basics of the industry before making completely impractical rules!