B
uyers of a lifestyle property in Waikato now face a house they can’t live in, can’t insure, and the council says it must be demolished. The 2022 sale involved real‑estate agents who failed to disclose the roof’s condition, possible asbestos, and misled buyers about driveway access. The Real Estate Authority (REA) fined the agents and their supervisor, totaling $21,000, and sent the case to the Disciplinary Tribunal for possible compensation.
The buyers, unable to afford a new home, claim they paid for a property that was not theirs because the rear driveway was not shared. They now live in a caravan on the front lawn. Two sets of complainants – the purchasers and neighbours – raised the issues with the REA. Neighbours, who share a boundary, contacted the listing agency when the property appeared for sale. The ad’s photos suggested potential building problems due to the house’s age and condition. The listing described “sheds” as a selling point and claimed “private gravel driveway” access, with a “shared driveway” to the rear and sheds. Neighbours clarified that no shared access existed and that any use would be at their discretion.
The property was listed by experienced agent Steven Mathis. His son, Scott Mathis, who had only five months of experience and was not supervised by a qualified agent or branch manager, handled the sale. Steven passed the driveway information to his son, but the REA said he was obliged to make it explicit to buyers. The information was never recorded in writing. Buyers discovered the lack of driveway access only after moving in and attempting to use it.
The REA’s penalty decision found Steven Mathis “expressly ignored” the neighbours’ statement that they would not grant driveway access, and left the ad unchanged. Neighbours also asked if he had warned buyers about the lack of consent for a new garage and the roof’s condition – a 1950s fibre‑cement roof likely containing asbestos. He replied that buyers should conduct their own due diligence.
The REA reviewed the vendor’s “Property Description & Disclosure” document, which noted the likelihood of asbestos and a small leak above the door. With a leak present, the roof could have disturbed asbestos, posing a real health risk. Steven should have investigated further. Scott claimed he told buyers he didn’t know the roof’s material but that it might contain asbestos. The REA said this was insufficient; he was required to make his own inquiries and inform buyers of potential defects and risks.
Other complaints – about a septic tank, a fireplace, a nearby transfer station, and buyers being verbally told not to get a builder’s report – were not upheld. Buyers admitted they only “looked around the place” and did not investigate before signing. The REA noted no evidence of pressure from Scott to sign on the same day as the view.
Scott Mathis was fined $3,000 and ordered to complete training on “Disclosure: obligations to your client and customer.” He was not censured. The REA noted he should have known his father was not qualified to supervise him and that a branch manager or agent must supervise a new salesperson. Steven Mathis was fined $10,000, censured, and found to have engaged in high‑level unsatisfactory conduct. Supervisor Pete Lissington was fined $8,000, censured, and ordered to complete “Supervision: processes, planning and practice” training. His lack of proper supervision caused “considerable harm” and was also high‑level unsatisfactory conduct.
The REA has referred the matter to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal to decide on compensation. None of the licensees commented.
