Why Agents Should Not Fund A Client's Marketing Programme

According to the code of conduct (PAMDA) an agent has a number of obligations to their client.
Clause 6 says that the agent must comply with their fiduciary obligation to their client. This means that the agent must uphold the client's interests above their own at all times.
Clause 29 makes a powerful statement when it claims that an agent "must obtain the maximum price for a clients property.

Most legal experts believe that the code has been compromised if an agent pays for any marketing. Below are why:

The agent now has a vested interest in the property. In other words, it now owes them money. all too frequently a sale must be secured at any cost to recover the investment.

  • The agent has lost impartiality in the dealings. How can a sale be fairly negotiated when there is pressure on the negotiator to recover their funds from the transaction?
  • The property owner has lost control of the transaction. The old saying "He who pays has the say" well and truly applies in this situation.
  • Often the owner will complain that the advertising was too little or inadequate. However, they were not paying the bill so they are not entitled to any input.
  • Very few agent is willing or can afford to provide adequate marketing funds for a proper and comprehensive marketing campaign for a client's property. Therefore it would be difficult to argue that it sold for the maximum price in the market place even if it's eventually sold.

Testimonials
PAYMENT AUTHORITY
Please deposit funds directly into our trust account or call us on 0404331310 for more information.

    Get us to call you.