RMLS™ Rules Roundup for 2017, January-April 2018

image_pdfimage_print

The RMLS™ Rules and Regulations Committee has requested that reports about the number of formal violations, the type of violations, and the results get shared periodically with subscribers. Read “If a RMLS™ Rule is Broken, What Happens?” for a deeper explanation.

 

The RMLS™ Rules and Regulations Committee reviews all formal complaints which allege a violation of the RMLS™ Rules and Regulations. The committee has the power to impose sanctions.

Violations in 2017

Six formal violations were submitted in 2017, resulting in a total of $2,350.00 in fines being sanctioned. One RMLS™ subscriber had lockbox privileges suspended. The cited violations were as follows:

Section 5.1.L. Unauthorized Use of RMLS™ Lockbox Access Device or Method
• Not following showing instructions (3)
• Entering a property while in pending status (PEN) without prior approval (2)
• Using the lockbox system for purposes other than real estate business (1)

Violations in January through April 2018

During January through April of 2018, four formal violations were submitted resulting in a total of $800 in fines being sanctioned. The cited violations were as follows:

Section 5.1.L. Unauthorized Use of RMLS™ Lockbox Access Device or Method
• Entering a property while it was in pending status (PEN) without prior approval (2)

Section 5.1.S. Marketing of Listing Prior to RMLS™ Publication
• Marketing a listing prior to publication in RMLSweb (2)

 

The committee also discusses potential changes to the RMLS™ Rules and Regulations and makes recommendations to the RMLS™ Board of Directors. Subscribers are welcome to submit suggestions to the committee—contact Data Accuracy staff for more information via email or by calling (503) 236-7657.

Tags: ,

8 Responses to “RMLS™ Rules Roundup for 2017, January-April 2018”

  1. Susan Cusack June 11, 2018 at 6:06 am #

    Apparently RMLS does not provide the names of the violators, correct?

    • Christina Smestad June 12, 2018 at 11:28 am #

      Hello Susan, You are correct. The Rules and Regulations Committee and the RMLS™ Board of Directors wanted us to share the number and types of formal violations that are processed, not the name of the violators.

      • Garett Chadney June 12, 2018 at 12:04 pm #

        I think this needs to be re-visited by the BOD.

        • Christina Smestad June 12, 2018 at 1:05 pm #

          Hello Garett, The Board of Directors discussed this topic at their last meeting in May. They agreed that RMLS™ should share the number of formal violations, the types of violations and the fines levied but not the names of those found to be in violation.

  2. Garett Chadney June 11, 2018 at 6:39 am #

    I’ve talked with many people over the years who feel as I do that the names of those that violate the rules should be published along with the infraction and result (fine, suspension, revocation). We do it on a state level with our licenses so it should be no different with RMLS.

  3. Robin Grimm June 12, 2018 at 3:09 pm #

    I agree with Garrett. The names of the offenders should be public as is with the state. It is not fair to the reporter to not know that their report was addressed and taken seriously. After posting on a private RE FB page for feedback that I witnessed a lockbox code being given to a client and them entering the house without the agent I was contacted by RMLS to report it. With reservation I did. Then came an angry call from the agent’s principal broker defending the agent. After the Board did their investigation I was notified they had looked into it but they said that they could not tell me what the outcome was. Since that violation is not one that is listed for 2017 I can only assume that they were not found in violation. Does not encourage agents to report.

    • Garett Chadney June 12, 2018 at 5:12 pm #

      We are in a self-policing industry and it needs to be cleaned up so having the names of the offenders will go a long way toward that goal.

  4. Jim Green June 20, 2018 at 12:48 pm #

    I agree, identification of the offendermis a good extra deterrent and lets the person who made complaint know how it was resolved.

Leave a Reply