One Agency One Up Realty fined $18,000 after 275 transactions ran through an unaudited trust account

 Tribunal has found the East Tamaki agency guilty of misconduct for operating a trust account for six years without appointing an auditor, and set the fine at the higher end of the range because the regulator had warned it repeatedly. No client money was found to be missing.

Auckland agency One Agency One Up Realty has been censured and fined $18,000 after the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal found it guilty of misconduct under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 for failing to appoint a trust account auditor for six years, a period in which the account received funds relating to 275 transactions.

The business is licensed as One Up Realty Limited, the name under which the Tribunal recorded its decision, and trades as One Agency One Up Realty from Unit 5, 8 Laidlaw Way, East Tamaki. Its own website states that "One Up Realty Ltd is independently owned and operated as One Agency One Up". The company was incorporated in February 2017 and its registered office is the same East Tamaki address.

The agency opened its trust account on 24 August 2017. Under the Real Estate Agents (Audit) Regulations 2009 it was required to appoint an auditor at that point. It did not do so until 29 August 2023. The account was operational throughout and was not audited at the times and in the manner prescribed by the Act and the regulations. The findings cover the financial years ending 31 March 2018 through to 2024.

No client funds were found to be missing. Reports prepared retrospectively by the agency's auditor for the 2018 to 2024 financial years identified no irregularities in the handling of trust monies. The misconduct finding rests on the six-year absence of independent oversight, not on any loss to consumers.

That distinction is the part of the decision principals should read closely. The Tribunal still placed the penalty at the top of the available range, concluding that the fine "must be placed at the higher level of the available penalty for misconduct". It said that "[b]reaching the Audit Regulations must be regarded as serious", while adding that "we take into account that the Agency admitted liability and cooperated with the Authority at an early stage".

Weighing against the agency was the regulator's contact record. The Tribunal noted that "the Agency was reminded by the [Real Estate Authority] of its obligations to comply with the Audit Regulations and the Act on multiple occasions", and set out a series of notifications of requirements, requests for explanation and referrals to compliance information sent by the Real Estate Authority. The agency admitted its conduct amounted to a reckless contravention of the Act and the regulations, and pleaded guilty to the charge.

Alongside the fine and censure, the Tribunal ordered the agency's company officer to undertake further training and education on trust accounts. The order attaches accountability to the individual responsible for the agency's systems rather than to the company alone. The Real Estate Authority has not named that person.

Real Estate Authority chief executive Belinda Moffat said appointing a qualified auditor was not an administrative formality.

"Trust account obligations exist for the protection of consumers, and their funds. If trust accounts are not managed correctly, this could result in financial loss to consumers, reputational damage to the agency, and loss of trust and confidence in the industry as a whole," she said.

"Appointing a qualified auditor is a legal requirement under the Audit Regulations and a key part of the independent oversight required."

Moffat also set out where the regulator draws the line between assistance and enforcement. "As the conduct regulator of the real estate profession, REA seeks to educate and assist agencies to meet their obligations in operating trust accounts. However where we identify reckless, wilful or ongoing non-compliance REA will take stronger regulatory action."

For agency owners, the commercial significance of the decision sits in what it did not require. A lapsed compliance step, left unaddressed through repeated regulator contact, was enough on its own to produce a misconduct finding at the higher end of the penalty range, a censure, a training order against a company officer, and a published decision that now sits on the public record against the agency's name.

The Tribunal released its decision on 14 August 2026. It is cited as Complaints Assessment Committee 2302 v One Up Realty Ltd [2026] NZREADT 40. The Real Estate Authority publicised the outcome on 3 September.