NSW’s looming underquoting crackdown could leave vendors trapped, with proposed reforms potentially preventing sellers from advertising a lower price than a previously rejected offer, even when financial hardship, personal tragedy or longer listing periods force them to slash their expectations.
With NSW’s mandatory price disclosure reforms set to take effect in early 2027, former REIA president and Laing+Simmons CEO Leanne Pilkington warned that the proposed laws could unfairly restrict agents and vendors from adjusting advertised prices during a sales campaign, even when changing market conditions or personal circumstances warrant a reduction.
She warned that the rules could lock sellers into outdated price guides, even when market conditions no longer support their original expectations.
“Restrictions on price advertisements below a written offer which has previously been rejected solely on price could penalise vendors who genuinely revise their expectations,” Pilkington said.
“A rejected offer reflects what a seller was unwilling to accept at a particular moment. It does not define what the seller will be willing to accept for the remainder of the campaign.”
She said vendors often field strong offers early in the campaign, before they fully understand the market’s demand for their property.
If vendors rejected an offer in this early stage, NSW’s new underquoting laws may restrict them from listing at a lower price, even if those motivated buyers had moved on.
Pilkington said that in this situation, agents and vendors were then forced into a price representation that no longer accurately reflected their position or the market.
Additionally, Pilkington said changes in market or personal circumstances could force vendors to change expectations, which they would then be unable to convey to potential buyers.
“A seller may lose their job, become seriously ill or face financial pressure that makes a sale urgent. In such cases, it is unreasonable for a seller to be prevented from responding to changed circumstances because of an earlier pricing decision becoming an enduring barrier to selling their home.”
Pilkington said property owners often sold their assets for “unhappy reasons” and needed the flexibility to adjust their expectations as their circumstances changed.
When personal tragedy hits, Pilkington said vendors were typically willing to take “whatever they can get”, and that the rigidity of the reforms could be “really frustrating”.
She said the reforms had additional practical gaps that needed to be addressed and clarified, such as how the rules take effect when a vendor changes agents.
“If the advertised price restriction still applies, how does an incoming agent verify previously rejected offers?”
“On the other hand, if changing agents permits a lower price to be advertised, the reforms would create an incentive for sellers to change agents without delivering any additional consumer protection.”
To address these concerns, Pilkington has urged the government to introduce a mechanism to verify price revisions through documentation and to provide a clear outline of obligations when a property transfers between agents.
She said the process should include written confirmation of the seller’s revised price expectations, records explaining the reduction, including market evidence or changed circumstances and an updated evidence-based estimate of the likely selling price.
Pilkington said these practical processes would prevent unfairness and confusion in the industry.
“These actions would guard against contrived price reductions and deliberate underquoting, while allowing legitimate changes to be reflected promptly in advertising.”
“Protecting buyers and empowering sellers to adjust their prices to market conditions are compatible objectives. The reforms should achieve both. And they can, with some important adjustments prior to the reforms going live,” Pilkington said.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?Make Real Estate Business a preferred news source on Google.
