Clarifying questions on Act 242 real estate industry | Malaysian Institute of Estate Agents

Clarifying questions on Act 242 real estate industry


LETTERS: We refer to an article that was written by Jimmy L and published online titled ‘Act 242 fails to stem real estate industry misconduct’ dated 14 April 2020.

The Board of Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers (Board) would like to clarify and enlighten the writer on issues raised by him by acquainting him with the processes and procedures adopted by the Board which is enshrined in the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 (Act 242), Rules (Rules) and Malaysian Estate Agency Standards (Standards) made thereunder.

We shall address his views/assumptions in sequence in order to erase doubts and provide clarity. Firstly, his claim that higher ups (presumably registered estate agents) are placing barriers and are monopolizing the profession which if we may add is totally a fallacy.

The registered estate agents have to adhere to Act 242 and the Rules which includes a complete set of Code of Ethics which they have to abide by as any failure to do so would result in instant disciplinary action taken.

Not forgetting the standards which also clearly amplifies the role and duties of an estate agent. It is pertinent to mention that the responsibilities of an estate agent are far too onerous compared to his negotiators. Further, all registered estate agents are equal in the eyes of law and healthy competition is good for the country and her citizens so long as it is within the confines of the laws. Hence, the question of a cartel in the industry is rather baffling.

Placing barriers on one’s career development is an incorrect portrayal by the writer as he should be aware that the Act and Rules have laid down the minimum standard of entry to sit for its exams. So long as any person desiring to sit for the Board’s Estate Agent’s exams possesses the minimum entry requirement, they may sit for it. If we may add, one’s career advancement is in one’s own hands.

Secondly, the Board is very much aware on the issue of illegal estate agents raised by the writer. To arrest this proliferation, the Board decided to register all negotiators under the supervision of registered estate agents and we can assure the writer this exercise had reduced 80 percent of the illegal agents in the market. With further rules in place we are certain we can eradicate the illegal agents totally.

Thirdly, the writer’s contention that the registered estate agents themselves are not in compliance with Act 242, we cannot but impress upon him that the Board does not tolerate non- compliance by any party be it registered estate agents or negotiators. Armed with substantive proof the Board will institute disciplinary action forthwith.

Fourthly, the Board would like to emphasise that its enforcement team is extremely active contrary to what had been assumed by the writer as he is not privy to the statistics of cases the Board has in its files arising from our investigating officers reports, be it against the illegals or registered persons.

As for the former category the team lodges police reports against them for their further action. It is imperative that the writer understands the Board’s powers as stated in Act 242 wherein it does not empower the Board to prosecute the illegal agents. Meanwhile, the number of disciplinary actions taken against the registered members may be found in our website.

The writer has also aired his grouses over the CDP renewal course where he has stated inaccurately that it is a two- day course whereas it is only for half a day. The Board wishes to advise the writer all its speakers selected are crème de la crème and therefore there is no question on their credibility. Thus far the Board had heard many raving reviews on their performance.

We trust the clarification provided herewith would erase the concerns of the writer.