| 51 | It is also well established that an agent cannot rely on third party representation. johnston - 2021-01-09 22:58:00 |
| 52 | apollo11 wrote:
Miss Deads, who is this fine sounding woman? And why does Duterte have her laundry list?. I'm still wondering why anyone would bait an eye, or complain that no-one baited one. And what would one use for bait? However, as #7 points out, and #8 says "At face value he should succeed in his complaint against the agent." - the part totally missed by #6 - and it's advertised directly above the 2 agents details, on the principal's website. It definitely states as property type: Residential. A tad hard to argue against that....
https://trademe.tmcdn.co.nz/photoserver/full/1466175108.jpg |
| 53 | autumnwinds wrote:
I'm still wondering why anyone would bait an eye, or complain that no-one baited one. And what would one use for bait? However, as #7 points out, and #8 says "At face value he should succeed in his complaint against the agent." - the part totally missed by #6 - and it's advertised directly above the 2 agents details, on the principal's website. It definitely states as property type: Residential. A tad hard to argue against that....
https://trademe.tmcdn.co.nz/photoserver/full/1466175108.jpg[
/quote] seems the purchaser wasn’t the idiot after all....... lakeview3 - 2021-01-09 23:09:00 |
| 54 | lakeview3 wrote:
seems the purchaser wasn’t the idiot after all....... #3, idiot. sparkychap - 2021-01-09 23:10:00 |
| 55 | sparkychap wrote:
#3, idiot. seems it’s the real agency and the council who are the idiots......misrepresented the property as residential.... a lawyer may or may not have picked this up.....I would have hoped so....but.... Or maybe it’s just the council......and the real estate agent and the purchaser should work together to get the council to cough up.... Edited by lakeview3 at 11:19 pm, Sat 9 Jan lakeview3 - 2021-01-09 23:18:00 |
| 56 | lakeview3 wrote:
seems it’s the real agency and the council who are the idiots......misrepresented the property as residential.... a lawyer may or may not have picked this up.....I would have hoped so....but.... who said the council misrepresented? A 30 second check with them would have raised the issue. He did nothing. He’s an idiot. sparkychap - 2021-01-09 23:20:00 |
| 57 | sparkychap wrote:
who said the council misrepresented? A 30 second check with them would have raised the issue. He did nothing. He’s an idiot. he definitely should have used a lawyer that’s for sure. lakeview3 - 2021-01-09 23:25:00 |
| 58 | lakeview3 wrote:
he definitely should have used a lawyer that’s for sure. he likely did, as I said above it’s odd they didn’t raise any issues either. But to buy 2 old churches, one with Heritage status and doing no research or checks? Very odd indeed. You might say he’s an idiot. Edited by sparkychap at 11:28 pm, Sat 9 Jan sparkychap - 2021-01-09 23:27:00 |
| 59 | sparkychap wrote:
he likely did, as I said above it’s odd they didn’t raise any issues either. But to buy 2 old churches, one with Heritage status and doing no research or checks? Very odd indeed. You might say he’s an idiot. I can see where he is coming from though. Very naive however. Edited by lakeview3 at 11:30 pm, Sat 9 Jan lakeview3 - 2021-01-09 23:30:00 |
| 60 | autumnwinds wrote:
the part totally missed by #6 - and it's advertised directly above the 2 agents details, on the principal's website.
Lol.
I was relying on information supplied by sparky. I took it on faith that his information was all present and correct and decided not to do my own research. apollo11 - 2021-01-09 23:43:00 |
| 61 | apollo11 wrote:
Lol.
I was relying on information supplied by sparky. I took it on faith that his information was all present and correct and decided not to do my own research. that’ll learn ya. sparkychap - 2021-01-10 08:58:00 |
| 62 | He's not an idiot. It's very obvious that he has done all of this deliberately. He spotted the opportunity within the advertising to get someone else to pay for the resource consent. Edited by trouser at 9:08 am, Sun 10 Jan trouser - 2021-01-10 09:08:00 |
| 63 | trouser wrote:
He's not an idiot. It's very obvious that he has done all of this deliberately. He spotted the opportunity within the advertising to get someone else to pay for the resource consent. I did voice suspicion that there's more too this at post #14, but spending $250K hoping he'd win damages to pay for the RC is pretty risky as there's no certainty he'd win. He'd also potentially be opening himself up for lengthy and costly legal action sparkychap - 2021-01-10 09:15:00 |
| 64 | trouser wrote:
He's not an idiot. It's very obvious that he has done all of this deliberately. He spotted the opportunity within the advertising to get someone else to pay for the resource consent. That's fanciful. johnston - 2021-01-10 09:34:00 |
| 65 | andrewcg53 wrote:
No he has no show
Please be aware that this information has been sourced from third parties. View our property information disclaimer here: mikepero.com/property-disclaim-
er/
He was an idiot to buy without even getting a lim report I sincerely hope you are not agent. Incredibly I still encounter the occasional licensee who believes that nonsense. johnston - 2021-01-10 09:35:00 |
| 66 | autumnwinds wrote:
I'm still wondering why anyone would bait an eye, or complain that no-one baited one. And what would one use for bait? However, as #7 points out, and #8 says "At face value he should succeed in his complaint against the agent." - the part totally missed by #6 - and it's advertised directly above the 2 agents details, on the principal's website. It definitely states as property type: Residential. A tad hard to argue against that....
https://trademe.tmcdn.co.nz/photoserver/full/1466175108.jpg[
/quote]
The property is less that 1ha it is a residential property and would pay rates accordingly it does not matter it is in a rural zone what matters is the rural zone has rules when a property can be occupied and in this case it has to be 4ha or more or you need a consent which would cost around 5K not 50K
The agent at no time stated the property was in a residential zone andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 09:35:00 |
| 67 | andrewcg53 wrote:
The property is less that 1ha it is a residential property and would pay rates accordingly Council rating data has it classified as OR - "other religious". sparkychap - 2021-01-10 09:44:00 |
| 68 | sparkychap wrote:
Council rating data has it classified as OR - "other religious".
Yes because it was a church andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 09:52:00 |
| 69 | andrewcg53 wrote:
Yes because it was a church And still is. sparkychap - 2021-01-10 09:55:00 |
| 70 | andrewcg53 wrote:
The agent at no time stated the property was in a residential zone According to the article "[it] had been advertised by Mike Pero Real Estate as a residential property with one bedroom." You are also sorely mistaken about the effect of a disclaimer and the mere conduit defence. Edited by johnston at 10:26 am, Sun 10 Jan johnston - 2021-01-10 10:15:00 |
| 71 | johnston wrote:
According to the article "[it] had been advertised by Mike Pero Real Estate as a residential property with one bedroom." You are also sorely mistaken about the effect of a disclaimer and the mere conduit defence.
A property under 1ha is classes as a residential property by most councils even if in a rural area, there is no official parameters on when residential becomes lifestyle becomes rural
You may want to read this
https://www.realestate.co.nz/blog/tips-and-guides/whats-diff
erence-between-lifestyle-and-rural-properties andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 12:18:00 |
| 72 | andrewcg53 wrote:
A property under 1ha is classes as a residential property by most councils even if in a rural area, there is no official parameters on when residential becomes lifestyle becomes rural
You may want to read this
https://www.realestate.co.nz/blog/tips-and-guides/whats-diff
erence-between-lifestyle-and-rural-properties So what's the issue then? The property is either a residential property with one bedroom or it's not. Edited by johnston at 12:26 pm, Sun 10 Jan johnston - 2021-01-10 12:26:00 |
| 73 | Good Lord travlr - 2021-01-10 12:29:00 |
| 74 | andrewcg53 wrote:
A property under 1ha is classes as a residential property by most councils even if in a rural area, there is no official parameters on when residential becomes lifestyle becomes rural
Not true, what is relevent is what is a permitted activity at that location. If the council planning rules state you're not allowed to have a dwelling on land that size, it can't be classified as residential. sparkychap - 2021-01-10 12:46:00 |
| 75 | sparkychap wrote:
Not true, what is relevent is what is a permitted activity at that location. If the council planning rules state you're not allowed to have a dwelling on land that size, it can't be classified as residential.
Someone did live in it but I bet it had a grandfather clause in the LIM and when who ever was living left it lapsed it is why it pays to get a LIM Residential has nothing to do with the ability to live in a property it is a description of the size of the property
Residential house small block of land house may or may not be liveable
Lifestyle 1-20ha of land house may or may not be liveable
Rural anything over 20ha of land house may or may not be
Section land up to 1ha
Bareland land over 1ha andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 13:23:00 |
| 76 | andrewcg53 wrote:
Someone did live in it but I bet it had a grandfather clause in the LIM and when who ever was living left it lapsed it is why it pays to get a LIM Residential has nothing to do with the ability to live in a property it is a description of the size of the property
Residential house small block of land house may or may not be liveable
Lifestyle 1-20ha of land house may or may not be liveable
Rural anything over 20ha of land house may or may not be
Section land up to 1ha
Bareland land over 1ha Punctuation would make your post easier to read which is perhaps why I am struggling with this inane statement ... residential has nothing to do with the ability to live in a property. johnston - 2021-01-10 13:29:00 |
| 77 | andrewcg53 wrote:
Someone did live in it but I bet it had a grandfather clause in the LIM and when who ever was living left it lapsed it is why it pays to get a LIM Residential has nothing to do with the ability to live in a property it is a description of the size of the property
Residential house small block of land house may or may not be liveable
Lifestyle 1-20ha of land house may or may not be liveable
Rural anything over 20ha of land house may or may not be
Section land up to 1ha
Bareland land over 1ha No it's not. If you aren't permitted to live on the property, you are misleading to suggest it's residential. It's that simple. And how do you know someone lived in it? I can't see a bedroom on the photos. sparkychap - 2021-01-10 13:29:00 |
| 78 | I am beginning to think Andrew is attempting to wind us up. johnston - 2021-01-10 13:29:00 |
| 79 | johnston wrote:
I am beginning to think Andrew is attempting to wind us up. Yes, especially as you can't put legally binding clauses on a LIM, sparkychap - 2021-01-10 13:37:00 |
| 80 | andrewcg53 wrote:
Someone did live in it but I bet it had a grandfather clause in the LIM and when who ever was living left it lapsed it is why it pays to get a LIM Residential has nothing to do with the ability to live in a property it is a description of the size of the property
Residential house small block of land house may or may not be liveable
Lifestyle 1-20ha of land house may or may not be liveable
Rural anything over 20ha of land house may or may not be
Section land up to 1ha
Bareland land over 1ha A LIM should reflect existing zoning, consents, rights and so on of the subject property. It does not create new ones nor enforce existing. It is merely a record. Edited by johnston at 1:49 pm, Sun 10 Jan johnston - 2021-01-10 13:41:00 |
| 81 | Yes but the lim will have a record the fact he never got a lim or even looked at the property means he has no show of any comeback on the agent and did he ever ask the agent any questions and from what I have read he never did andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 14:24:00 |
| 82 | The sheer ignorance of the above post is worryingly similar to a banned poster. johnston - 2021-01-10 15:14:00 |
| 83 | He stated the fact never even looked at the property even a smart idiot would look at the property andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 15:24:00 |
| 84 | andrewcg53 wrote:
He stated the fact never even looked at the property even a smart idiot would look at the property Does the law not apply in that case? johnston - 2021-01-10 15:26:00 |
| 85 | andrewcg53 wrote:
Yes but the lim will have a record the fact he never got a lim or even looked at the property means he has no show of any comeback on the agent and did he ever ask the agent any questions and from what I have read he never did So you've gone from the agent didn't misrepresent to it doesn't matter if they did. Edited by sparkychap at 3:35 pm, Sun 10 Jan sparkychap - 2021-01-10 15:34:00 |
| 86 | johnston wrote:
The sheer ignorance of the above post is worryingly similar to a banned poster. I believe this is one of the few platforms that Trump hasn't been banned from. sparkychap - 2021-01-10 15:35:00 |
| 87 | sparkychap wrote:
So you've gone from the agent didn't misrepresent to it doesn't matter if they did.
No the agent never misrepresented the property
Property type residential is 100% correct NZ has no legal definition for residential property and if you think there is I would like to see your proof andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 17:59:00 |
| 88 | andrewcg53 wrote:
No the agent never misrepresented the property
Property type residential is 100% correct NZ has no legal definition for residential property and if you think there is I would like to see your proof Are you allowed to live in it? sparkychap - 2021-01-10 18:02:00 |
| 89 | lakeview3 wrote:
lol you came in here just to post that! Funny.
No. I own several properties within the WDC and know their zoning. Pull your head in. orphic1 - 2021-01-10 18:06:00 |
| 90 | andrewcg53 wrote:
No the agent never misrepresented the property
Property type residential is 100% correct NZ has no legal definition for residential property and if you think there is I would like to see your proof Who was quoting definitions earlier based on size? Err, let me think. sparkychap - 2021-01-10 18:07:00 |
| 91 | sparkychap wrote:
Who was quoting definitions earlier based on size? Err, let me think.
They are guides in no way legal or have to be followed so again show me the LEGAL definition of residential in NZ andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 18:12:00 |
| 92 | andrewcg53 wrote:
They are guides in no way legal or have to be followed so again show me the LEGAL definition of residential in NZ You show me. You're the one claiming it was residential. sparkychap - 2021-01-10 18:14:00 |
| 93 | There is no LEGAL definition of residential in NZ
The property type in all advertising for properties is for search purposes and in no way a legal definition of a property andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 18:22:00 |
| 94 | andrewcg53 wrote:
There is no LEGAL definition of residential in NZ
The property type in all advertising for properties is for search purposes and in no way a legal definition of a property And if an agent shows a property as residential, then a buyer might consider that it actually IS and won't need a costly resource consent before they can legally live there. sparkychap - 2021-01-10 18:24:00 |
| 95 | Also I am calming the agent never misrepresented the property with no legal definition there is no way the agent was ever in the wrong. andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 18:24:00 |
| 96 | andrewcg53 wrote:
Also I am calming the agent never misrepresented the property with no legal definition there is no way the agent was ever in the wrong. Be nice to the fairies at the bottom of your garden please. sparkychap - 2021-01-10 18:25:00 |
| 97 | sparkychap wrote:
Be nice to the fairies at the bottom of your garden please.
Sorry I am not a Labour voter andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 18:33:00 |
| 98 | andrewcg53 wrote:
There is no LEGAL definition of residential in NZ
The property type in all advertising for properties is for search purposes and in no way a legal definition of a property How do you reconcile your statement with sections 9, 12A and 14 of the Fair Trading Act? johnston - 2021-01-10 19:04:00 |
| 99 | andrewcg53 wrote:
There is no LEGAL definition of residential in NZ
The property type in all advertising for properties is for search purposes and in no way a legal definition of a property See the Court of Appeal in Godfrey Hirst NZ Limited v Cavalier Bremworth for how marketing can be misleading. johnston - 2021-01-10 19:07:00 |
| 100 | A quick search of council records shows it as a rural property. It's not a residential section. apollo11 - 2021-01-10 19:20:00 |
