A Question of Fairness

An Age Article on Underquoting and a Young Agent Tas Bartels

Today’s article in The Age has generated significant attention, but I’m struck by what we don’t know. We have no idea what was actually said to the agent, Tas Bartels, by the person who recorded him.

Having read the article in The Age concerning Tas Bartels, I’m left with more questions than answers about whether the legal threshold for underquoting was actually met.

A Question of Fairness: Underquoting, Young Agents, and the Need for Context

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: I oppose underquoting. If you’ve followed my writing over the past 20 years, you’ll know this isn’t a new position. Underquoting causes genuine pain to buyers. It wastes their time, drains their resources on building inspections and legal fees, and inflicts real emotional harm when they discover the property they’ve fallen in love with was never within their reach.

Just last week, I found myself in a heated negotiation where an agent had quoted a range, we offered within that range, and their counteroffer came back above it. I called it what it was, unacceptable, I wanted refunds of P&B fees and more. After considerable back and forth, we got their counter back within the quoted range. The property ultimately sold to someone else, but the principle mattered.

So no, I’m not here to excuse underquoting or diminish the legitimate frustrations of buyers who’ve been misled.

What the Law Actually Says

Under Victorian law, underquoting occurs when an agent provides a price estimate lower than one of three things:

1. Their genuine opinion of the property’s value
2. Any written offers already received
3. The vendor’s stated asking price

This is important. The legal test isn’t simply “did the property sell for more than quoted?” Markets move. Competitive bidding pushes prices up. Sometimes vendors have unrealistic expectations and yes I acknowledge underquoting is widespread

Back to the article in today’s Age concerning young agent Tas Bartels,

I’m left with more questions than answers about whether the legal threshold for underquoting was actually met.

Consider what we don’t know:

• What price did the vendor want?
• Were there existing written offers?
• What did the agent genuinely believe the property was worth at the time of quoting?

The conversation quoted in the article shows a young agent discussing possibilities. “Probably” and “possibly” having a two in front of it. Speculating about potential outcomes.

Is this a statement of genuine valuation, or is it the kind of aspirational talk that happens when an agent is trying to win business in an incredibly competitive market?

The Bayside Reality

Anyone who works in the Bayside market knows it’s a challenging environment.

Agents compete fiercely for listings. Experienced operators know exactly how to frame conversations to win business.

Is it any surprise that a young agent, keen to secure a listing, might engage in some optimistic speculation about what could be achieved?

There’s a meaningful difference between:

• Putting $1.8–$1.95 million in writing as your quoted range, while verbally speculating that maybe, possibly, you might get more. I hear this line of talk every single day but what I trust is what I see in writing.

• Genuinely believing a property is worth $2.2 million and deliberately quoting $1.8–$1.95 million to mislead buyers

The first might be unwise. The second is illegal. I’m not convinced we have enough information to know which occurred here.

• What are the comparables, what was the property? We need more information to decide did he really think it was worth 1.8m to 1.95m and the rest is puffery or did he think it was worth more?

The Recording Concern

What troubles me also is the method by which these statements were obtained. A young agent, apparently speaking to someone he believed was a fellow professional—someone considerably more experienced—could (it’s not clear to me) have been led down a conversational path designed to elicit problematic statements.

We’ve all been in conversations where we’ve said things we later wished we could take back. Where we’ve engaged in the kind of professional banter that sounds terrible when quoted out of context. i.e. It’s unclear why he mentioned the CAV in that context, perhaps it was an attempt to impress someone more senior, but we can only speculate.

Does this excuse genuinely unlawful conduct? Of course not. But does it provide important context for evaluating statements made in what the agent believed was a puffery conversation?

Perhaps.

This was a professional to professional selling conversation NOT an agent to a buyer.

Proportionality and Fairness

So I think about the young man at the centre of this story. Stood down. Career hurt. Reputation temporarily damaged. The mental health toll this must be taking.

For what, exactly? Perhaps simply for saying some ill-advised things in a conversation where he may have been trying to impress someone? For quoting in writing a range that may or may not have aligned with comparable sales data -we don’t have that context?

Perhaps legitimately.

Again, I’m not saying no fault exists here. The cavalier attitude toward compliance he apparently expressed is concerning and he and his company will need to review his and their training and “attitudes” and I would minimise any puffery going forward if I was him.

This case is a reminder to all agents, young and old,  that everything we say, even informally, can be taken seriously. Transparency, clear documentation, and caution in even aspirational conversations are critical.

But is a public shaming in a major metropolitan newspaper proportionate to the conduct? Eg is he a repeat offender or was this an unusual set of circumstances where perhaps he was out of his depth.

Does it actually solve the problem of underquoting, or does it simply make an example of someone who was perhaps less sophisticated than the person who did the recording?

What About Sellers?

In all the rightful concern for buyers—and their concerns are legitimate—we rarely discuss the other side of the equation. Vendors trust agents to achieve the best possible outcome for their property. An agent who deliberately underquotes risks attracting buyers who can’t afford the property while failing to attract those who can.

No vendor has ever thanked an agent for underselling or not selling their home.

What was said to Tas away from the recording by this vendors agent/lawyer about the sellers?

A Path Forward

If we’re serious about eliminating underquoting, we need systemic solutions:

• Better training for young agents entering the profession
• Enforcement that targets patterns of behaviour rather than isolated statements
• Recognition that verbal speculation about “dream prices” can differ from written representations on opinions of market value.
• Us, the old guard, to lead the young, by good example.

What we don’t need is the public humiliation of young professionals whose primary crime may ( and I am not sure but may) have been inexperience and poor judgment in trusting the wrong person.

Conclusion

To buyers who’ve been genuinely misled by underquoting: your frustration is valid. The practice is harmful and should be stamped out.

I am sorry and I know it hurts.  My article here is not to belittle the damage it does when buyers dreams are dashed by lies.

But to those celebrating this particular article: before we hang this young man out to dry, can we be certain what occurred?

Can we be sure that his written quote didn’t reflect his genuine view of the market at the time? Can we be confident that the greater public interest is served by this kind of exposure?

I’m not certain. And in matters that can destroy careers and livelihoods, certainty should be our minimum standard.

I believe in accountability. I also believe in fairness, proportionality, and the presumption that people deserve the benefit of the doubt until the facts are clear.

The facts here are far from clear.

Disclaimer: This post represents my personal opinion based on publicly available information. It does not constitute legal advice. Anyone facing concerns about underquoting—whether as a buyer, seller, or agent—should seek independent counsel.

Disclaimer: I do not know Tas Bartels personally, only dealt with him professionally on a few occasions and found him always willing to please, suggest, try and help me as a buyers advocate and my clients as buyers.