PHOTO: Ruwade Bryant. TRADE ME
A Hamilton real estate agent has been ordered to pay more than $17,000 in compensation after telling a prospective home buyer that a property’s roof was around five years old when it was actually more than 25 years old.
The case highlights the importance of accurate property information, agent disclosure obligations and professional conduct when selling residential property in New Zealand.
The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal released its decision on August 7, 2026, following a referral from the Real Estate Agents Authority’s Complaints Assessment Committee.
NEW | Access New Zealand’s Ultimate Real Estate Agent Database — 18,000+ Agents & Agencies Included
Hamilton property buyer complained about roof information
The purchaser, identified in the tribunal decision as BT, bought a residential property in Hamilton for $564,000.
The agreement became unconditional under a conditional agreement dated July 27, 2023, with settlement taking place on September 14, 2023.
BT subsequently complained to the Real Estate Authority (REA), alleging that real estate agent Ruwade Bryant had misrepresented the age of the property’s roof.
The complaint was lodged on September 23, 2023.
According to the tribunal decision, Bryant had told the buyer’s daughter on July 9, 2023, that the roof was less than five years old.
He also described the property as having a “newer” roof, based on information supplied by the vendor.
The roof’s age became a significant issue after the purchase, with the buyer stating that it was actually 25 years old or more.
BT lodged a complaint with the Real Estate Agents Authority on September 23, 2023, alleging agent Ruwade Bryant had misrepresented the age of the roof.
Real estate agent relied on vendor’s information
The case is particularly relevant for New Zealand real estate agents because the tribunal accepted that Bryant did not deliberately attempt to deceive the purchaser.
Bryant said he genuinely believed the roof was newer because that was the information provided by the vendor.
However, the tribunal found that this did not remove the agent’s professional responsibility to take reasonable care when communicating information about the property to potential buyers.
The Complaints Assessment Committee found Bryant had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct, concluding that he had failed to take sufficient care to ensure the information about the roof was accurate before passing it on.
The conduct was found to breach Rules 5.1 and 6.4 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012.
The distinction between an innocent mistake and deliberate dishonesty was important in determining the eventual compensation.
Agent also authorised roofing inspection without permission
The roof-age issue was not the only concern considered in the case.
Bryant was also found to have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct by authorising a visit from a roofing inspector after the sale agreement had been signed, without first checking with the vendor or confirming that he had express permission under the agreement.
The Complaints Assessment Committee subsequently censured Bryant, ordered him to provide a written apology to the purchaser and imposed a $1,000 fine.
The compensation claim was then referred to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal.
NEW | Access New Zealand’s Ultimate Real Estate Agent Database — 18,000+ Agents & Agencies Included
Buyer sought more than $22,000 for roof replacement
The purchaser sought $22,879.25 for the cost of replacing the roof.
Additional claims were also made for matters including:
- A lost opportunity to negotiate a lower purchase price
- Loss of income
- Travel costs
- Stress and inconvenience
The tribunal did not accept all of these claims.
However, it found that the cost associated with replacing the roof was sufficiently connected to the agent’s conduct to justify compensation.
Tribunal says agent was careless, not dishonest
One of the key aspects of the decision was the tribunal’s finding that Bryant had held an honest belief about the age of the roof.
The tribunal considered that the agent had been careless rather than deliberately dishonest.
That distinction affected the level of compensation awarded.
The tribunal applied a 25% reduction to the proven loss of $22,879.25 because the breach was considered an innocent professional breach rather than conscious dishonesty.
The resulting compensation order was:
$17,159
Bryant was ordered to pay the compensation within one month.
What does the decision mean for NZ real estate agents?
The case provides an important reminder for New Zealand real estate agents that information supplied by a vendor should not automatically be treated as verified fact.
Property information relating to matters such as:
- Roof age
- Building condition
- Renovations
- Structural work
- Building consents
- Weathertightness
- Repairs
- Chattels
- Property improvements
can have a significant impact on a buyer’s decision.
Where an agent is communicating information to a potential purchaser, the accuracy of that information can become a professional responsibility.
The Hamilton case demonstrates that an agent does not necessarily have to deliberately mislead a buyer before facing disciplinary consequences.
An honest but careless representation can still result in a finding of unsatisfactory conduct and a compensation order.
Why property information matters to buyers
For home buyers, the decision is also a reminder that information provided by a real estate agent should not replace independent due diligence.
Buyers considering a property should consider obtaining appropriate professional advice and investigating important aspects of the property themselves.
A building inspection, review of council information and examination of relevant property documentation can help identify potential issues before settlement.
However, the tribunal’s decision also reinforces that real estate professionals have their own obligations when providing information about a property.
Real estate agent named in tribunal decision
Bryant was working for Lugtons Ltd in Hamilton at the time of the events.
He did not file a formal defence in the proceedings for personal reasons and subsequently apologised to the tribunal, expressing a desire for the matter to be resolved.
The tribunal ordered that its decision be published identifying Bryant, while the purchaser’s identity was suppressed.
A warning for the New Zealand real estate industry
The case is another example of the scrutiny faced by New Zealand real estate agents when information supplied during a property transaction proves to be inaccurate.
For agents, the lesson is straightforward: if a statement about a property could influence a buyer’s decision, accuracy matters.
Describing a 25-year-old roof as five years old may appear to be a relatively simple error, particularly where the information originally came from a vendor.
But once that information is communicated to a prospective purchaser, it can become highly consequential.
The $17,159 compensation order demonstrates that even where an agent is found to have acted without deliberate dishonesty, careless property representations can still have significant financial and professional consequences.
For New Zealand property professionals, the case reinforces the importance of verifying important property information wherever possible and clearly distinguishing between verified facts, vendor claims and information that remains unconfirmed.
SOURCE: STUFF