EAA Publications
|
| |
| The Freshman |
Content
Page |
| |
| To carry out agency work
on the internet, one must be licensed and abide by the Regulations |
| |
 Estate
agencies have made increasing use of the internet in their operations.
While the Estate Agents Ordinance regulates individuals and
companies who are engaged in estate agency work, there are no
express provisions as to the medium in which such work is carried
out. An estate agent who introduces vendors or purchasers, landlords
or tenants to his clients must be licensed, or he will be guilty
of an offence. It follows that carrying out estate agency work
on the internet is also regulated by the Ordinance.
David was employed in a computer company and had to work long
and irregular hours. He decided to rent a flat near his office
so as to save on commuting time. He chose to look for a flat
through the internet, as it would be time saving, convenient
and in keeping with the trend of the day. He found a website
which listed many flats in the area. The website also indicated
that purchasers and tenants would not have to pay commission.
After finding a suitable flat on that website, David contacted
the agent by e-mail for an inspection appointment. When they
met, David asked the agent to show his licence. The agent said
he did not have it with him, and David was too polite to insist.
While they were viewing the flat, there was nobody else inside.
The agent said the landlord was an old client of his and trusted
him, so he could take any prospective tenant to look at the
flat. David found the flat quite satisfactory and expressed
his wish to discuss the details with the landlord. The next
day, the agent arranged for David to meet a man, who claimed
to be the landlord, in a restaurant. After discussion, the two
parties signed a lease, with David paying the rent and a deposit.
A week later, David called the agent but no one answered. He
browsed through the internet but the website had disappeared.
He could neither contact the agent nor the landlord. He grew
suspicious and reported the incident to the police. It was later
discovered that neither the firm nor the agent was licensed,
nor was the "landlord" the real owner of the flat.
The case is still under investigation, but it appears that David's
chance of recovering the rent and the deposit is slim.
Although information on property listings could be obtained
quickly on the internet, David should have verified whether
the agent held a valid licence before instructing him. He should
check the property information to be provided by the agent at
the same time as he inspected the flat so as to establish the
identity of the landlord. Had he taken such precaution, he would
have been protected from the swindle.
|
| |
