BresicWhitney’s Ivan Bresic admits agency needed ‘tap on shoulder’ over alleged underquoting

THE real estate agent whose firm is accused of underquoting has admitted what it was doing was legally “dangerous” and it “needed a tap on the shoulder to say ... ‘clean this up’.”

weekend auction 141 goodlet st. Surry Hills. auctioneer Ivan Bresic. Winners asked not to be identified.

EXCLUSIVE

THE Sydney real estate agent whose firm is accused of underquoting has made damning admissions including that what it was doing was legally “dangerous” and it “needed a tap on the shoulder to say ... ‘clean this up’.”

In the first prosecution of its type in more than a decade, Darlinghust-based BresicWhitney is defending allegations it broke the law by advertising properties at prices lower than estimates it had given to sellers in written agreements.

It is claimed in court documents that BresicWhitney gave a Double Bay vendor an estimated selling price of $1.6-$1.9 million only to list the unit with a guide of over $1.5 million in October 2014. It sold for $1.79 million.

That same month it gave a Surry Hills seller an estimate of $1.1-$1.2 million then listed the house at $1.025 million-plus. It sold for $1.07 million after passing in at $1.055 million.

Part of NSW Fair Trading’s case against the agency is a February 2015 interview between two of its investigators and BresicWhitney half-owner and director Ivan Bresic. The interview occurred after The Sunday Telegraph revealed the agency was being prosecuted for underquoting.

One of the investigators says: “The problem is that your agency agreement says one thing but you advertise another ... which is considerably less than what your agency agreement says”.

Mr Bresic replies: “Yes”.

Then, following comments by Mr Bresic about lessening advertised prices to ensure properties attract sufficient interest, an investigator says: “You’ve used that word a number of times — to get ‘interest’ in.”

Mr Bresic: “Or to go to the market with.”

Investigator: “Which is not acceptable.”

Mr Bresic: “Dangerous, yep ...”

Later, one of the investigators raises an unidentified property and says it too was advertised at a price “considerably less than what your agency agreement says”.

Mr Bresic: “Yes.”

Investigator: “Now when we look at that, we see a considerable underquoting of the price ...(compared to) your selling price.”

Mr Bresic: “Yes.”

Investigator: “And you have no agreement or annexure or anything ... which explains the variation.”

Mr Bresic: “Yes.”

Investigator: “Okay.”

Mr Bresic: “The owner has agreed to it. The owner had agreed to it.”

Investigator: “Verbally?”

Mr Bresic: “Correct.”

Investigator: “After the event. And you didn’t get anything in writing from them.”

Mr Bresic: “Didn’t. Didn’t get that in writing.”

Investigator: “So this is where you’re creating the problem.”

Mr Bresic: “Yep, yep.”

While Mr Bresic does not challenge the claim made during this exchange that the verbal agreement only came after advertising had commenced, earlier, in relation to the Double Bay and Surry Hills sales, he says the owners verbally agreed to lower prices prior to advertising campaigns commencing.

However, he also admits “I think we needed a tap on the shoulder to say ‘this needs — we need — to clean this up’.”

He says the agency had taken action to do so after the prosecution began.

One of the investigators then asks: “So, based on that, this would not have occurred any more?”

“1000 per cent,” Mr Bresic replies. “On my mother’s life. And I love her very much.”

Underquoting is a breach of the Property Stock and Business Agents Act. It carries fines of as much as $22,000 and trading licences can also be stripped. The most recent prosecution was in 2004, which was successful.

A decision is due to be delivered in Blacktown Local Court on May 6.