Condo salespeople have no limits on claims?

Village Whisperer has been following the MAC-gate ‘fake foreign buyer’ story for a while and recently reported the Real Estate Council of BC decision in that case: a temporary suspension and small fine for one Realtor.

But what about the other MAC employees who played rolls in this story, why no repercussions for that deceit?

Here’s the loophole: condo salespeople who are not realtors are not ruled by the Real Estate Council and can apparently make any claim they want before passing a potential buyer off to a realtor to sign the legal documents.

Read all about it over at Whisperers blog.

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
patriotz
Member

“Real Estate boards decision in that case:”

No, that was a decision of the Real Estate Council of BC, a government agency which regulates (weakly it seems) real estate agents, who are people licensed by the province to sell RE.

The Real Estate boards are trade associations comprised of of real estate agents who use the REALTOR® trademark. They have their own process (also weak in practice) for disciplining their members.

Since this topic deals with legalities, it’s best to get these right.

VCI Admin
Admin

Thanks, noted and corrected.

UBC in crisis mode
Guest
UBC in crisis mode

“Real Estate Council of BC, a government agency”.

The Council is definitely not doing its job if consumers are misled but nothing is done.

OI
Guest
OI

why do we let these people into our country? their backwards culture is totally incomparable with modern society.

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2014/07/02/accused-in-bc-bomb-plot-faces-new-charge

The Man
Guest
The Man

@#4 What, did you forget about our own modern society home grown terrorist rampage? The home grown ones were actually successful in doing a lot of damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamish_Five

Guy Smiley
Member
Guy Smiley

A colleague just saw her almost-finished condo in Burnaby that she purchased as a pre-sale 2 years ago. It’s a year late and the ceilings are a foot lower than expected (8 instead of 9). I’ve never seen a pre-sale contract, but she says it has a lot of clauses that leave her with no recourse.

vangrl
Member
vangrl

I’d be seriously pissed about a change of ceiling height

Melba
Guest
Melba

…….I’d be seriously pissed about a change of ceiling height….

I’d be seriously pissed I bought a condo (regardless of the ceiling height).

vangrl
Member
vangrl

lol ya me too!

paulb
Member
Active Member

New Listings 272
Price Changes 127
Sold Listings 141
TI:16570

http://www.paulboenisch.com

oneangryslav2
Guest
oneangryslav2

“A colleague just saw her almost-finished condo in Burnaby that she purchased as a pre-sale 2 years ago. It’s a year late and the ceilings are a foot lower than expected (8 instead of 9). I’ve never seen a pre-sale contract, but she says it has a lot of clauses that leave her with no recourse.”

But she’s “getting on with her life”, and is a “grown-up”, and at least is in the market. It’s not as if the market can conceivably go down. Smart woman!

Son of Ponzi
Guest
Son of Ponzi

It always happens.
First the Ceiling height goes down and then the prices.

BPOM FAN
Guest
BPOM FAN

“It’s a year late and the ceilings are a foot lower than expected (8 instead of 9).”

They did it to pander to those dam immigrants, 8 foot ceilings brings them good luck. God I hate those locusts.

southseacompany
Member
southseacompany

“Canada’s financial system vulnerable to overheated housing market, central bank says” Reuters, July 1/14

http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2014/07/01/canadas-financial-system-vulnerable-to-overheated-housing-market-central-bank-says/

“Canada’s overheated housing market represents a significant risk to the stability of its financial system, the country’s central bank has warned.”

“Risk 1: Housing market correction.
Risk 2: Interest rate spike.
Risk 3: Stress from China and other emerging markets
Risk 4: Eurozone stress”

Oracle
Guest
Oracle

No correction or crash until the TFW, IMP, and ICT programs are terminated.

Simple.

david
Guest
david
Real estate in Vancouver is now a monster. And everyone there is so completely immersed in it that you have no idea that it is consuming and dictating people’s existence. It has become so fundamental to the local (otherwise dormant) economy that no one dares question or risk “damaging” it….no matter what it becomes or does. MAC-gate is just another day at the office. Here’s the grift: While RE victims keep showing up as “one-offs” or specific, small groups, no one will do or say anything. But when the entire thing finally implodes under the weight of all the BS, and its too late to do anything whatsoever, there will be “world-class” acrimony, finger-pointing, “toss the bums out”, pain, and tears. Summary: Almost all of you are completely screwed….you’re just stretching the “denial stage” like no one else on Earth… Read more »
david
Guest
david

Here’s a mind-blower, for those with any neurons left firing:

Condominiums are NOT real estate. They are derivatives of real estate, financial contracts that occupy the space between actual real property ownership and simple renting.

Just like automobile leasing, the concept was invented to spur prices and sales when the underlying product was out of reach of the average buyer. Condos were NOT invented as “a response to consumers’ needs”.

You pay a lower monthly rent (it’s just called something else), your quality of life is completely dictated by surrounding inhabitants, and your freedoms come behind the rights of others. And for all this, you still pay the enormous upfront entrance fee, and enter into a long-term legal obligation with a bank…as if you DO own real estate.

Which you do not.

patriotz
Member

@17: “Just like automobile leasing, the concept was invented to spur prices and sales when the underlying product was out of reach of the average buyer.”

Actually it was invented to give developers a quick return on investment instead of depending on future rental income which might be subject to government controls.

The BC Strata Titles Act was enacted in 1969, back when a SFH was quite affordable to the average buyer in Vancouver.

david
Guest
david

#18 “Actually it was invented to give developers a quick return on investment”…

So….I say ‘bigger’, you say ‘quicker’. In the world of investing money, the ‘bigger vs. quicker’ argument is explained under the concept of ‘risk vs. reward’. If you think the rationale behind it was ‘one and not the other’, you’re wrong.

It was some of both. But IMO, internet message boards are hardly a place for semantics, subtleties, and nuances.

southseacompany
Member
southseacompany
Given that average condo price in Van is the same as in 2008, while detached prices have risen, this is not surprising; “Homebuyers face tougher time trading up from condo to house, TD warns” Globe & Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/homebuyers-face-tougher-time-trading-up-from-condo-to-house-td-warns/article19441724/ (Economist Diana Petramala’s) take on the condominium market is interesting as “the implications of overbuilding are already starting to be felt.” Condo resale listings have doubled in some cities, and there’s also an “ample supply” of new but unoccupied units. This is already a buyer’s market, with just modest price growth, said Ms. Petramala, who expects condo prices to fall by about 2 per cent next year and who cites the 135,000 units now under construction.” “That means that “more choice and better affordability” in the condo market may well keep people from buying up to single family homes, as will the… Read more »
david
Guest
david

#189 BTW….here’s an interesting article specifically on Canadian real estate in 1969 (!?) that refutes your premise that housing was “so affordable” for people in 1969. It’s focused on Toronto, but I would bet the main points are equally valid for Vancouver.

One great nugget:

“…In 1969 you need a minimum of 25% down payment, and you could not have a GDS higher than 30% and TDS of 40%. That meant that to buy a basic small starter home you needed to come up with $6250.00 – on an income of only $8000.00 before tax, it took families years to save to buy the home…..”

http://www.centum.ca/felix_hunter/Blog/Flashback_to_1969_Is_housing_really_more_unaffordable_today

Bull! Bull! Bull!
Guest
Bull! Bull! Bull!

you guys should be happy with the situation. owners are subsidizing renters. you guys are winning.

vancouver is an asian city and asian rules apply. buyers don’t just buy for themselves under these rules, but buy for their children and their parents. the outlook isn’t a few years, it is half a century or more.

can’t sell the condo for a gain in the short term? no problem, grandma or the kids will live there. the unit will be passed on to the next generation.

chinese culture isn’t night markets and dragon boat festivals. get out of kits, commercial drive, north shore, white rock and meet the people who are determining the fate of the region. you might learn something. european rules no longer apply. time to learn the new game. and take mandarin classes.

Ulsterman
Member

The Centum article puffs away about how hard it was for families to get into the housing market because the deposit was about 3/4 of the yearly household income. Certainly that forced families to SAVE for longer but saving was much easier when interest rates were high i imagine.

I can hear the modern real estate purchaser screaming now, “What? Delay my gratification! I want my granite counter tops NOW?”

The article also fails to mention that with 25% down, the average 1969 Toronto buyer held a mortgage of $18,750 yet earned on average $8,000. Today’s buyers in Toronto can only dream of such ratios.

taylor192
Member

A 700 sqft 2bdrm (actually 1+den) on the 4th floor in my building (Kits) just sold for $75K over assessed, while a larger 850 sqft proper 2bdrm on the 2nd floor has a $25K price reduction to less than what the 4th floor condo sold for.

People sure are willing to pay a lot for view… of a tree.

DaMann
Member
DaMann

@23

Yup. Article kinda fails in trying to convince it’s cheaper to own today than back then. As the article states a home was roughly 4 times annual income. That’s the only stat I need to see. I’d kill for that opportunity…

Jon
Guest
Jon

“Condominiums are NOT real estate”

Tell that to the people paying 100 million for a unit in NY.
http://www.lfpress.com/2014/06/02/what-does-110-million-get-you-a-penthouse-in-nycs-woolworth-building

wpDiscuz