In Victoria’s heated property market, real estate professionals are grappling with more than just rising buyer demand and unpredictable price shifts; they’re also navigating one of the most complex and punitive regulatory environments in the country.
For Lisa Pennell, CEO at Barry Plant, the issue of underquoting has become a lightning rod for broader questions about fairness, transparency, and what it truly means to act ethically in a market that changes by the minute.
“In Victoria, the compliance environment is like nowhere else in the country,” she says.
“If you’ve worked nationally, you know the differences between jurisdictions – but in the last few years, it’s become almost unworkable down here.”
Unlike in Queensland, where agents are prohibited from offering a price guide, Victoria mandates one.
That alone creates a patchwork of consumer experiences, and confusion for buyers and investors who might be looking across state lines.
But it’s not just inconsistency that’s the issue. According to Lisa, the enforcement approach of Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) is contributing to a climate of fear and silence.
“In one case, we were fined $12,500 for a one-hour lapse where a rental price didn’t display correctly due to a CRM error. The property was live on all other portals. It was a minor mistake, but the penalty was extreme,” she says.
“We challenged it, and even though the court criticised the regulator, they still released a statement claiming victory, as if they’d taken down a criminal enterprise.”
For many agencies, the fear of retaliation now outweighs the will to push back.
“There’s a feeling that if you challenge a fine, you’ll be targeted. So most people pay up, even when they know they’ve done nothing wrong.”
The realities of a rising market
In this environment, underquoting, whether real or perceived, has become a loaded term. And as Lisa points out, the market itself doesn’t always cooperate with static regulation.
“We’re entering a boom,” she says. “Developers are back, investors are back, and momentum is building. In that kind of market, price guides become outdated very quickly.”
She shares the example of a Barry Plant property that was listed at $700,000 to $770,000.
A similar home down the street, listed with another agency at $600,000 to $660,000, ended up selling for $850,000 just an hour before Barry Plant’s scheduled auction.
In response, the vendors of the Barry Plant property lifted their reserve to $830,000, and the property eventually sold for $860,000.
“From the outside, it might look like underquoting,” she acknowledges.
“But the context matters. The vendor changed their expectations minutes before the auction. And they’d initially bought the property in the COVID bubble for a high price. The home had since been tenanted and was in poorer condition. We even helped fund styling and cosmetic upgrades to get it market-ready.”
Lisa is quick to point out that unethical underquoting does happen in our industry, we can’t turn a blind eye, but she argues that the current system doesn’t differentiate between manipulation and market movement.
“When the laws are rigid and the market is dynamic, you end up catching ethical agents in the net while others who game the system skate by. That’s not good regulation.”
Agents, not valuers
One of Lisa’s key criticisms is the assumption that real estate agents should function as valuers – an expectation that, in her view, is not only misguided but unfair.
“Agents are marketers. They’re not licensed valuers.
Their role is to create competition and secure the best result for their vendor, not to predict exactly where the hammer will fall,” she says.
“It’s strange to me that we continue to treat quote ranges as if they’re set in stone when we know the market can turn on a dime.”
Instead, she advocates for a focus on comparables, transparency around campaign feedback, and open dialogue with vendors and buyers.
“Let the data do the talking. There’s so much information available to consumers now.
We’re not in the old world where agents held all the cards. Buyers know how to do their homework.”
Transparency in practice
At Barry Plant, Lisa says internal training focuses on navigating the pricing conversation with honesty while still remaining competitive.
“We coach our teams to share all buyer feedback with vendors, even if it’s optimistic, and to explain the context behind that feedback.
“For example, if a neighbour throws out a high figure, we’ll share that with the vendor but also qualify it … ‘Yes, that’s your neighbour, so take it with a grain of salt.’ It’s about building trust, not manipulating expectations,” she says.
“The way you handle information defines your brand,” she says.
“We aim to help customers make informed decisions, not just ‘put deals away’.”
So what’s the solution? For Lisa, the answer may lie in overhauling how compliance is approached and moving towards models that actually support consumer transparency – perhaps, like the ACT’s mandate for vendors to provide building and pest reports.
“Instead of focusing on policing price guides, why not mandate upfront reports so buyers aren’t left out of pocket on failed bids? Or take away the guide entirely, like in Queensland, and let the market speak?
“There’s no perfect solution, but there are better ones than what we’ve got. Regulation should support good practice, not punish professionals for outcomes beyond their control.”
