Case A · Wellington · April 2026
When the agent becomes a one-way information filter
A vendor in Wellington was selling a 1910s character home through a sole agency. Over a period of a few days, the agent relayed a prospective buyer's concerns about "inaccessible areas" under the house. The vendor had consulted a repiling professional whose view was that no specialist work was needed. The professional's view did not reach the buyer. The concerns shifted from one topic to another. The sales manager was added to the conversation to support the agent's framing. This is the anatomy.
Pattern
The information flow
The agent occupies the single-point position between buyer and vendor. In this case, the buyer raised specific concerns about foundation areas not accessible in a standard building inspection. The vendor consulted an independent professional — a repiling specialist — who advised that no specialist work was needed; the matters the buyer raised could be resolved, if at all, by routine trades work. The vendor passed the specialist's advice to the agent.
The agent did not pass the specialist's advice to the buyer. Instead, the agent returned with a new framing of the buyer's concern — now about "the unknown from areas that can't be accessed" rather than any specific defect. The specialist's opinion, which addressed the specific defect, became irrelevant to the new framing.
When the vendor questioned why the agent had not passed the specialist's view, the conversation escalated. The sales manager was added to the thread. The manager's intervention was framed as compliance: "we are required to follow the law." No specific provision was cited.
The dynamics
- Amplification of the buyer's concern. The specific defect concern was conveyed in strong terms, without the specialist's mitigation.
- Filtration of the vendor's mitigation. The professional opinion went into the agent's side and did not come out.
- Goalpost movement. When the mitigation might have addressed the original concern, the concern was reframed as something the mitigation could not address.
- Authority framing. When the vendor pushed back, the sales manager joined the conversation with a compliance framing rather than addressing the substance.
Legal basis for the vendor's position
- PCCC Rule 9.1 — A licensee must act in the best interests of a client. Selectively relaying information that encourages the vendor toward a costly concession, while withholding the mitigation, is hard to reconcile with the best-interests duty.
- PCCC Rule 9.2 — A licensee must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive. Presenting a reframed concern while withholding mitigating expert opinion already received is conduct that may be likely to mislead.
- Fair Trading Act 1986 s.9 — No misleading or deceptive conduct in trade. Applies alongside Rule 9.2.
- Principle: "Legal requirement" invocations must cite the specific provision. Reliance on "we are required" without citation is not a statutory foundation. See "Required by law": REA Act vs agency policy.
Response template
The vendor's effective response has three parts: request the original buyer words, request confirmation that the specialist's advice has been shared, and ask what specific legal provision supports any compliance framing.
Hi [agent],
Regarding the buyer's concerns about [specific topic]:
1. Can you provide the buyer's own written statement of the concern? I would like to respond to the actual position, not a paraphrase.
2. On [date], I provided you with [specialist's] written view that [mitigation]. Please confirm in writing that this has been conveyed to the buyer.
3. If there is a legal requirement involved in how we respond, please identify the specific section of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 or rule of the Professional Conduct and Client Care Rules 2012 that applies.
I am willing to engage on any substantive matter. I would like the engagement to be grounded in documented facts.
Kind regards,
[Vendor]
See the full letter templates library for related templates.
Lessons for vendors generally
- Write everything down. Oral advice from specialists is easily not conveyed. Written advice is evidence that it exists and should be conveyed.
- Ask for the buyer's own words. When the agent describes the buyer's concern, ask for the buyer's written statement. If there is no written statement, the concern may be more agent-framing than buyer-position.
- Be alert to goalpost shifts. When a mitigation is addressed and the concern migrates to a new topic, the original concern may not have been the real driver.
- Compliance framing without citation is not compliance. The REA Act and the PCCC Rules are specific. "We are required" without specifics is worth questioning.