IEASA aims to outlaw ‘accreditation’ by homeowners’ associations

The Institute of Estate Agents (IEASA) is taking on the practice of “accreditation” which gives selected agents exclusive property marketing rights in some security complexes and estates.

This stands to affect thousands of South African homeowners who have to date not been at liberty to choose their own agents when buying or selling units in certain developments.

In terms of the so-called accreditation schemes, the homeowners’ association (HOA) in a complex or estate will confer exclusive marketing rights for that complex on selected agents – usually in return for an annual fee.

The practice was recently reviewed by the Competition Commission, which found it did not constitute anti-competitive behaviour because all agents are still free to work in the residential areas surrounding particular complexes or estates.

However, Dr Willie Marais, national president of IEASA, says the organisation has decided to take the matter further and is calling for input from its members as well as non-members in the real estate industry. (See www.ieasa.org.za Survey: Accreditation Required By Home Owners Associations - closing date 3 April 2009)

“We have also obtained legal advice on the matter and have been advised that the practice is unlawful. Our advisers have indicated that accreditation is, on the one hand, an unfair business practice in terms of the Consumer Affairs Act of 1988, as well as being in contravention of key provisions of our Constitution.

“Section 22 of the Constitution protects both the right to choose a profession and the right to practise the chosen profession and “accreditation” infringes this right.”

Marais points out that estate agents are not opposed to registration with HOAs for security purposes. “However, the current practice smacks of a smokescreen for creating mini-monopolies, while there is no quid pro quo for the fees – sometime exorbitant sums – that agents have to pay for the privilege of practising their profession in these developments.”

He says the principle of accreditation means that recognition is given to a certain standard. However, estate agents are already regulated by legislation that requires certain standards to be met before agents can be registered. Additional “accreditation” is therefore a misnomer.”

“What is more, restrictions on the number of agents active in an estate may influence the market value of properties, which infringes property owners’ constitutional rights in terms of Section 25.”

Marais adds that IEASA is also concerned about the implications of “accreditation” for property consumers. “The practice limits property sellers’ and buyers’ rights to choose an agent to represent them in property transactions. Accredited agents might, for instance, not be consumers’ first choice, based on considerations such as experience and expertise.

“We do not question the responsibility of estate agents to know the rules and regulations of such security estates, which is an obligation placed on them the by the EAAB Code of Conduct, but will hopefully be able to meet soon with an HOA representative body to try to prevent some HOA’s from continuing to raise crippling annual fees, and limit the number of agencies working in their complexes, before we have to take legal action.”

Issued by the Institute of Estate Agents of SA
www.ieasa.org.za

IEASA gaan ‘akkreditasie’ deur HEVs beveg

Die Instituut van Eiendomsagente (IEASA) gaan die praktyk van “akkreditasie” wat gekeurde agente eksklusiewe bemarkingsregte vir eiendom in sekere sekuriteitskomplekse gee, beveg.

Dit gaan na verwagting duisende SA huiseienaars raak wat tot dusver nie hulle eie agente kon kies wanneer hulle eiendom in sekere ontwikkelings koop of verkoop nie.

Ingevolge die sogenaamde akkreditasieskemas staan die huiseienaarsvereninging (HEV) in ‘n behuisingskompleks of landgoed eksklusiewe bemarkingsregte vir dié kompleks aan gekeurde agente toe – gewoonlik teen ‘n stewige jaarlikse fooi.

Die praktyk is onlangs duer die Mededigingskommissie hersien, wat bevind het dat dit nie as nie-mededingende optrede beskou kan word nie aangesien alle agente steeds in die woongebiede rondom sulke komplekse of landgoedere mag werk.

Maar, sê dr Willie Marais, nasionale president van IEASA, sy organisasie het besluit om die saak verder te voer en doen nou ‘n beroep op lede sowel as nie-lede in die eiendomsbedryf om insette te lewer. (Meer inligting by www.ieasa.org.za Survey: Accreditation Required By Home Owners Associations - closing date 3 April 2009))

“Ons het regsadvies oor die saak ingewin en is meegedeel dat die praktyk onregmatig is. Ons raadgewers wys daarop dat akkreditasie eerstens ‘n onbillike sakepraktyk is ingevolge die Wet op Verbruikersake van 1988, en tweedens strydig met sleutelbepalings in ons Grondwet is.

“Artikel 22 van die Grondwet beskerm die reg om ‘n beroep te kies sowel as die reg om die gekose beroep te beoefen, en “akkreditasie” maak op dié regte inbreuk.”

Marais wys daarop dat eiendomsagente nie registrasie by HEVs vir sekuriteitsdoeleindes teenstaan nie. “Maar die heersende praktyk lyk na niks meer as ‘n rookskerm vir die skep van mini-monopolieë nie, terwyl daar geen quid pro quo is vir die fooie – en soms is dit uitspattige bedrae – wat agente moet betaal vir die voorreg om hulle beroep in dié ontwikkelings te beoefen.”

Hy sê voorts die beginsel van akkreditasie beteken dat erkenning aan ‘n bepaalde standaard gegee word. Eiendomsagente word egter reeds gereguleer deur wetgewing wat sekere standaarde stel en waaraan agente moet voldoen voordat hulle as agente geregistreer kan word. Bykomende “akkreditasie” is dus ‘n mistasting.

“Boonop kan beperkings op die aantal agente wat in ‘n landgoed sake mag doen die markwaarde van eiendom beïnvloed, wat weer eienaars se grondwetlike reg ingevolge Artikel 25 aantas.”

Marais sê IEASA is ook bekommerd oor die implikasies wat “akkreditasie” vir eiendomsverbruikers inhou. “Die praktyk beperk kopers en verkopers se reg om ‘n agent te kies om hulle in eiendomstransaksies te verteenwoordig. Geakkrediteerde agente mag byvoorbeeld nie verbruikers se eerste keuse wees nie, gegrond op oorwegings soos ervaring en kundigheid.

“Ons bevraagteken nie die verantwoordelikheid wat op eiendomsagente rus om met die reëls en regulasies van sulke veiligheidslandgoedere vertroud te wees nie – ‘n verpligting wat inderdaad deur die Raad op Eiendomsagentskapaangeleenthede se Gedragskode voorgeskryf word – en hoop om eersdaags met ‘n verteenwoordigende liggaam van HEVs samesprekings te voer in ‘n poging om sekere HEVs te verhoed om hul buitensporige jaargelde telkens te verhoog en die aantal agente wat in hul komplekse werksaam is te beperk, voordat ons tot regstappe oorgaan.”

Issued by the Institute of Estate Agents of SA
www.ieasa.org.za