Last year I was referred to a seller who had fallen on hard times.
He was thoughtful, open and easy to talk to. I prepared an appraisal for him and, as part of that process, highlighted some potentially non-compliant work in the home, along with the likely implications and possible pathways forward.
He thanked me. Gave generous feedback. Said he would likely come to market in a few months.
When I followed up, he told me very candidly that he had decided to list elsewhere.
“I wasn’t sure whether I should say this,” he said, “but I’ll just say it. The reason I didn’t use you is because you pointed out the non-compliant work. If I list with you, you’ll have to tell people.”
It wasn’t confrontational. It was honest.
And I understood the tension.
He had done the work himself. It was good quality work. It functioned well. Making it compliant would cost money. From his perspective, it didn’t feel like a problem — it felt like an unnecessary expense. And I sensed he was wary of adding further pressure at an already difficult time.
Most sellers in this position are not trying to deceive anyone.
They simply don’t see the risk the way a future buyer might.
When non-compliance is raised, sellers often focus on the quality of the work.
“I did a good job.”
And often, they did.
But buyers don’t only inherit the workmanship.
They inherit the consequence.
Even when workmanship is sound, non-compliance can narrow lending options, complicate insurance, and reduce flexibility at resale — ultimately affecting value and negotiability.
In New Zealand, sellers give warranties in the Sale & Purchase Agreement confirming, among other things, that alterations requiring consent have the appropriate approvals.
There is broader consumer legislation underpinning property transactions, including the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
At its core, this framework is about fairness and informed choice.
You are not expected to dismantle your home for a buyer. Purchasers have a responsibility to conduct their own due diligence.
But when you are aware of non-compliant work, the obligation to disclose is real — regardless of whether the workmanship is excellent.
It’s also worth saying this: disclosure does not automatically lead to catastrophe.
Many buyers are prepared to accept risk for themselves that they would not tolerate being exposed to without their knowledge.
Informed choice is the difference.
Short-term ease and transaction stability are not always aligned.
Disclosure should never sit alone. It should sit alongside a strategy — remediation where appropriate, documentation where required, pricing that accounts for it, and communication that leaves no ambiguity. Managed properly, these issues need not define a sale.
Our role is not to alarm you — it’s to prepare you.
Disclosure frequently intersects with matters that later surface in builders inspections as explored in The Imperfect Builders Report.
From time to time — usually when disclosure feels difficult — I hear:
“They can’t prove we changed that.”
Often, that assumption is simply incorrect — and underestimates how traceable property history has become.
Historic listing photos exist.
Building materials and design trends date properties.
Council files are searchable.
Google Street View archives and historic aerials go back years.
Previous quotes, invoices or conversations with tradespeople can resurface when least expected.
In today’s market, information has a long memory.
In some conversations, I’ve been able to show sellers evidence on the spot.
We live in a far more information-rich environment than we did even a decade ago. Buyers, inspectors and solicitors are increasingly sophisticated. Banks are more cautious. Building inspectors are less inclined to take a “she’ll be right” approach.
We are also operating in a more liability-conscious and litigation-ready climate than ever before.
The idea that something might not be discovered is becoming less realistic with each passing year.
It’s not always about a problem surfacing five years down the track.
Sometimes it happens during your own sale.
You can invest in marketing.
Prepare your home beautifully.
Secure a conditional buyer.
Even secure the next property you’ve set your heart on.
And then — during due diligence — the issue is uncovered.
At that point, you are no longer deciding whether to disclose.
You are managing a contract under pressure — and working to stabilise a negotiation where flexibility may have narrowed and positions become more guarded.
Deals can collapse.
Chains can unravel.
Stress multiplies.
Doing the right thing early is not only about protecting the buyer. It is also about protecting your own outcome.
There are, broadly speaking, three types of agents in this space:
• Those who are comfortable overlooking certain issues.
• Those who simply don’t recognise the issue.
• Those who will raise it.
Not every failure to disclose reflects bad faith. Sometimes it is simply a knowledge gap.
But as a seller, it is worth asking:
If an agent is comfortable downplaying risk to a buyer, how do they approach risk when it affects you?
And equally — if an issue isn’t identified at all, that doesn’t remove the underlying exposure. The risk to you as a seller exists whether or not the agent has recognised it.
An unidentified issue is not a non-existent issue.
Professional standards in real estate are not abstract. They shape how risk is identified, explained and managed.
Disclosure does, in part, protect the agent. But it also protects the seller — and, more importantly, the stability of the transaction itself.
Competence matters as much as character.
And the standard applied early often determines how steady the sale feels at the finish line.
One pattern I’ve noticed over time in my own business is this:
The better the preparation, the fewer the fallen contracts.
Earlier in my career, deals were more likely to wobble. Not because issues were ignored, but because experience sharpens your ability to identify potential friction points sooner and address them more deliberately.
With time, that lens becomes clearer.
Identifying potential risks early — even when uncomfortable — creates something far more valuable than temporary ease.
It creates stickability.
When expectations are clear and disclosure is handled properly from the outset, contracts are more stable. Buyers feel informed. Solicitors feel comfortable. Banks are less hesitant.
Preparation doesn’t eliminate every risk.
But it dramatically reduces avoidable ones.
And that stability is not accidental.
It is the result of raising issues early, structuring them properly, and ensuring they are addressed before pressure builds.
Preparation doesn’t just protect against compliance risk — it strengthens negotiation position, whatever method of sale you choose. We discuss this more in Choosing an Effective Method of Sale.
Ultimately, disclosure is a decision about risk.
You can deal with something clearly and deliberately now — or you can hope it doesn’t create pressure later.
Sometimes remediation feels expensive.
But so is a collapsed negotiation.
So is legal advice mid-contract.
So is losing the home you had already mentally moved into.
If raising an issue costs me a listing, that is a decision I can live with.
Because selling well isn’t just about achieving a strong price.
It’s about achieving a strong settlement — one that holds together under scrutiny.
And informed choice protects that outcome — for everyone involved.
If you’d like clarity on how potential issues might impact your sale, we’re happy to talk it through early.
• The Imperfect Builders Report
• When Bathroom Renovations Raise Questions
• Choosing an Effective Method of Sale