Property Extras
Quick Search
iProperty Anywhere
Get the latest property news at your fingertips!

Singapore government to regulate real estate industry
Rising complaints against real estate agents raises questions on existing system
Oct 15, 2009 -

The Ministry of National Development (MND) has proposed ways to regulate the local real estate industry and is seeking public feedback on it.

 

According to MND, there are about 1,700 real estate agencies licensed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) and an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 real estate agents in the market. Recent rising number of complaints against real estate agents was deemed as ‘not tenable’ and that the whole system was not ‘satisfactory’ by minister of National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan.

 

In 2008 alone, there were more than 1,400 complaints.

 

The proposed regulatory framework aims to enable consumers to safeguard their interests through public education and tough regulations, and also to increase professionalism of the real estate industry. To start off, residential property transactions will be focused upon.

 

There are three major components to the proposed regulations and they are:

 

i.                    Government enhanced regulatory powers

The regulatory authority will work with a recognised accreditation body for agents that will be formed. A public central registry will be maintained by the accreditation body to allow agencies and consumers to ascertain the background and profile of agents they wish to engage.

 

MND has also proposed to disallow real estate agents from working as freelancers by only allowing them to represent one accredited agency. There will be a standard associate agreement between agents contracted to an accredited agency for them to practice. Furthermore, agents must pass an industry examination and be accredited by the accreditation body before they can practice. Agents will also be disallowed from representing both buyer and seller in the same transaction to prevent conflict of interest.

 

The regulatory authority will also be given enhanced regulatory powers to increase levels of monitoring and enforcement. Agents and/or agencies that are caught for non-compliance with legislative requirements or infringement of accreditation requirements will face disciplinary actions through a tiered penalty system that may include warnings, fines, suspension and expulsion. Agencies with errant agents may also be subject to restriction on recruiting agents.

 

ii.                  Industry-led accreditation

A mandatory industry-led accreditation scheme for both agencies and agents is expected to encourage greater professionalism among them.

 

Agencies will have to adopt minimum service standards that will be made known to clients upfront, and provide compulsory continuous professional training and upgrading of their agents. Meanwhile, agents will have to be qualified through an industry entrance examination covering both ethics and practical knowledge before they can practice as well as adhere to a code of conduct.

 

To protect consumer interests, the accreditation body will maintain a public central registry listing all accredited agents so that consumers can see if the agent they engage is qualified. Agencies will also benefit from this as they could possibly find the background and profile of agents they wish to hire. A standard contract between agents and agencies spelling the rights and obligations of agents before any service is rendered will also be adopted. This move is aimed to reduce common disputes like commission rates, and co-broking agreements.

 

MND has also proposed that agencies put in place complaints-handling processes including a mediation platform at the agency level in the event of a dispute. Additionally agents could be made to have professional indemnity insurance to cover any negligent acts or omissions or breaches of professional duty.

 

iii.                Improved Dispute Resolution Mechanism

One of the key drive to this regulatory proposal is due to the high number of complaints received in recent years. It is expected that agencies should take on greater responsibility for resolving disputes with clients and to facilitate this, proper complaints handling processes within the firm should be set up.

 

The government is also exploring on the possibility on working with industry players to set up an independent tribunal to specialise in real estate disputes.

 

MND’s proposed framework for the real estate industry is currently under the public consultation process and members of the public can share their views on www.mnd.gov.sg. Key elements of the new framework are expected to be announced in the December 2009 to January 2010 timeframe while legislative enactments are expected by the second half of 2010.

Latest News:

Related Categories: Daily Property News and Updates, HDB, Private Residential, Non-Residential

Tags: N/A

Bookmark:
Comments:
 
Please input the captcha text :

anonymous said...
my boyfriend sold his house and paid our agent 2 percent commission but she took our money and help the buyer instead of us. before we moved out she keep harrassing us day and night by calling and smsing us to let the buyer do renovation works etc before the official handover.
November 16, 2010 9:49:00 PM
anonymous said...
I like to know which authority control the pricing for private property like condominium in Singapore? And how are they controlling it? - The reason I asked is because for example, at the West Zone (District 22), there is a condo that was TOP last year which is valued at around 650k average but the unit are selling at above 900k. That's more than 30-40% above valuation!! For a HDB flat, if you have more than 10% above valuation, it is already outrageous. - So, what kind of control is the authority having to restrict property agents from jerking the price so high above valuation? Or is there any control in the first place? - I hope the respectively (if any) authority can respond asap to stop such practice.
June 24, 2010 1:37:00 PM
anonymous said...
Hi there, Basically there ERA itself is not enough to regulate the movement of how the agents operate in renting, more open-ness should be put to law as in who will be paying the commission. Owner full, tenant or owner and tenant half / half. Agent make their own call, depending on situation, no standard in operation which can turn out to be ' unfair practise", hence problem occur. one party must pay which is the owner as he is making money and the tenants is not will be fair practise and not up to the agents. ( agents have the tendancy trying to make more...) if unable to, try any type of " tricks'. All agents young and OLD must take. That does not mean that OLDER agents does not take as they may also 'lack" knowleadge after so long.( THEY MAKE THEIR OWN PRACTISE )...you be surprise they will fail in the test. This is to tell them to iMprove too or they are also OUT. Too many agent to take care, so to be an agent, they also have to pay income tax, report gain and pay tax. the agent are making so much and too much money....not accountable for. The government are not taxing them enough to collect money from this people as well. THE GOVERNMENT should step up and enforce agents to pay tax, report their gains... No need to dress so nice to " kill " - relax the law to allow them to dress smartly. Drop those ' auntie" just trying to make gain and lack profesisonalism. I recently encounter : Jones Lang Laselle agent , asking me to pay for rental commmission fee when it is supposed to be owner paying for it after $ 2600.00 ( anything below, bare by both parties ) the agents know that the owner must pay, yet she ask me to pay. 2nd agents : auntie. Like not happy serving customer if the place is not nice, yet can " tell you " the place is nice and beautiful...such comments can be expressed by the agents. Dressling nicely just to 'kill" is not justifiable. we expect dress smartly for man and not tie that must " kill" regards Alvin Chong 9795-5557
May 20, 2010 9:01:00 PM
anonymous said...
There are good and honest agents here in our country. There are webpages lke property guru ,iproperty , etc for landlords and tenants to choose their preferred agents and hire them. They make mistakes in choosing not the right agents and land up choosing the bad or freelance agents who run away when probolems arise to be solved by them. So my suggestion today is, every individuals, whether buyer or sellers , landlord or tenants must recognise their agents and their professionalism before hiring them. "prevention is better than cure." Here at this time of point i would say "selection is better than regret" by: PRISSYJAMES OT
April 14, 2010 11:24:00 AM
anonymous said...
The "rental agent" system in singapore is terrible. The agents are extremely dishonest and routinely fail to disclose information for a person to make an informed choice. I am a foreigner that recently moved to Singapore, and I find the rental agents system to be extremely dishonest and deceptive. It made for a horrible beginning to my stay here. Unfortunately, many foreigners I have talked to feel the same way.
January 14, 2010 4:02:00 PM