Agents who scam the elderly for personal profit don

http://www.jenmanfightsback.com.au/item.php?id=29
I

Sal

If the government hasn’t nabbed any rogue agents yet, then everyone must be doing the right thing out there.

The above themes perpetuated by some of you do not even once answer the plight of the elderly who are often given the lowest sales figures for the suburb when being persuaded to sell. How ethical is that? No it may not be criminal. But its a grubby practice being used extensively in Frankston. Affected agents shouldn’t cry “defamation” about twitter when they themselves wreck their own brand names.

Hasn’t anyone a moment ot consider the elderly, the weak, the uninformed?
Or are our commissions more important than people?

I’ve been told to put up or shut up by Glenn. And kindly but petulant Sal told me I might be sued for defamation (although not by him) if I kept this up. He may not have meant it to be a threat but its the usual sort of bullying that agents tend to use when facing criticism. The Customer is NEVER right -and agents can do no wrong.

Again – people, please answer me: How ethical is it when elderly people are scammed with improper sales evidence and are too weak to put up a fight or complain. What sort of Darwinian society do you agents live in that you ignore this sort of misbehavior? When replying, please attend to the issue of the elderly first.

Twitter empowers the weak to stand up! Honest agents have nothing to fear. Slimy ones should think about doing the right thing or leaving the industry.

That was certainly worded poorly by Greg. I think what he meant to say is that an agent has two relationships. The seller is a client relationship but the buyer is a customer relationship.

An agents fiduciary duty always remains with the seller however he still has a customer relationship and along with that goes legal, moral and ethical responsibilities to that buyer.

If agents are genuinely breaking their duty to their client I dont have a problem with them getting punished and personally I would actually encourage it. Just like the fact that there are dodgy solicitors, accountants and car mechanics.. so is there dodgy real estate operators and they should be weeded out but let the facts lead the way not attacks on peoples reputation because those claims had better be true.

The sheer breadth of the claims covering so many people and the cloak and dagger stuff smack of a smear campaign run for somebody

RE: Your statement that, “unfortunately agents we have 2 customers within any sales department. A seller & a buyer. ….which customer is right?”

This is a common misconception and should be addressed for your own and the wider industry’s benefit.

Despite wanting to keep the buyer happy to keep the on the line as a prospective listing client, you must only have one client!
Your client is the seller if it is they by whom you are being paid. (Generally based on commish %).
Your client is the buyer if it is they by whom you are being paid. (Generally based on commish %).

Apart from lacking morality, not acting in the best interests of your vendor client would have 2 adverse affects on your business:
1. Vendors would be wary of you crunching their agreed price with you.
2. Buyers you helped to ‘crunch’ the vendor would be wary of using you to list in future.

Sal