Commissioner for Fair Trading v Rumble; Commissioner for Fair Trading v Lamaro (Occupational Discipline)

In the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Commissioner for Fair Trading brought proceedings against Wayne Rumble and Karen Lamaro in relation to their conduct as licensed agents and registered salespersons under the Agents Act 2003 (ACT). The Tribunal was required to determine whether the respondents had contravened certain rules of conduct and, if so, what appropriate occupational discipline should be applied.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the respondents had contravened specific rules of conduct, and if so, the appropriate occupational discipline in light of the established facts and relevant statutory provisions. The Tribunal examined the adequacy of the respondents' actions in seeking instructions from the lessor, responding to tenants' maintenance requests, and recording details of a bond dispute. It also considered the need to act in the lessor's interests and the requirement to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act by those employed in the business.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had indeed contravened the rules of conduct by failing to seek timely instructions from the lessor and not attending promptly to tenants' maintenance requests. Additionally, they failed to record material details of a bond dispute and did not take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act by registered persons employed in their business. The Tribunal concluded that these contraventions warranted occupational discipline. After considering the factors set out in section 65 of the ACAT Act, the Tribunal found that the appropriate occupational discipline included financial penalties, specific training requirements, and formal reprimands.

The Tribunal made orders consistent with the agreed terms, including financial penalties for both respondents, mandatory training in specific areas of the legislative and regulatory framework, tenancy dispute management, and business record-keeping. Both respondents were also formally reprimanded and required to pay certain filing fees. The Tribunal further provided that in the event of non-compliance with these orders, the applicant could apply for enforcement.