Remote Supervision and the Undisclosed Leaky Home
At a 15-salesperson branch in Auckland, the branch manager, Priya, also manages two other offices. She visits the main branch one morning a week and relies on the office administrator to “keep an eye on things”. Two salespersons, both in their first six months, have been running their own listing presentations without a more experienced licensee present. One of them, Ben, listed a leaky home without disclosing the leaky building report he had seen in the vendor’s documents; he also told the buyer’s agent that the property “had no weathertightness issues”. A complaint has been made to the REA. Priya says she sent a monthly email reminding everyone of the Code and that each salesperson signed a supervision acknowledgment. The branch’s file review schedule shows no reviews of Ben’s files for four months.
1. Assess whether Priya’s supervision met the standard required of a branch manager.
Read the worked answer
No. Supervision must be active, risk-based and documented; it is not satisfied by a monthly email and signed acknowledgment. A branch manager must ensure salespersons comply with the Act and the Code, and must tailor oversight to risk. Two licensees in their first six months are high-risk: their listing presentations, agency agreements, advertising and disclosure should be checked before or soon after use.
Priya visited one morning a week, delegated oversight to an administrator, and had no file reviews of Ben for four months. That left Ben’s known-defect disclosure and misleading statement undetected. The email reminder did not test whether the Code was being followed. The acknowledgment may show training, but it does not show supervision. The standard is what a reasonably competent branch manager would do in the circumstances: regular one-to-ones, file audits, spot checks, review of advertising and disclosure, and a documented response to red flags.
2. What should Priya have done differently, and what are the likely disciplinary consequences for her and the agency?
Read the worked answer
Priya should have: identified Ben and the other new licensee as high-risk and set a closer review schedule; reviewed listing agreements, vendor disclosures and advertising before publication; accompanied or spot-checked listing presentations; checked how known defects and leaky reports were being handled; documented one-to-ones and file reviews; and acted immediately when the complaint arose by preserving the file, interviewing Ben, notifying the agent, correcting any misleading statement and cooperating with the REA.
Likely consequences: Ben faces disciplinary action for misleading conduct and failure to disclose a known defect. Priya faces a real risk of an unsatisfactory conduct finding for inadequate supervision; penalties can include censure, fines, conditions on her licence or training. The agency may also face consequences because the branch manager’s supervision failure occurred within its business. Priya’s best mitigation is a prompt, documented remedial plan and cooperation, not blaming the administrator.