Concern About In-Person Interaction and Follow-Up Response

Century 21 East Rand’s reply29 Jan 2026 at 12:38as the Principal Broker owner of Century 21 East Rand, i was put in the loop by my agent, with regards to this scenario entirely, and my response as follows:My opinion this is nothing more than a disgruntled competitor agent, for not getting the permission from the Seller, to re-publish and market their property, as we were the effective selling agency. 
the complainant did send me an email, and my reply was concise, as i was not about to enter into a "who said she said scenario", as essentially she should complain to Seller and not tarnish Century 21 East Rand , for no good reason. the Seller has all the right on whom to employ to market their property ,and this is what seller did, yet complainant has issue with this and now needs to be ridiculous and review this nonsensical issue.

Thank you for your reply.For clarity, this property was marketed under an open mandate, where no agency held exclusive rights. Sellers are fully entitled to choose whom they wish to work with, and that has never been in dispute.My involvement arose because the seller herself contacted me to confirm that she had decided to withdraw the property from the market and instructed that it should no longer be advertised. During these conversations, the seller also expressed her own frustration and discomfort regarding repeated contact and pressure from the same agent referenced in this matter.It was in this context — while communicating with the seller about her decision not to proceed with the sale — that I was unexpectedly confronted by your agent in a public retail environment. This interaction was inappropriate and left me feeling unable to disengage or continue with my own activities comfortably.My subsequent communication with your office was intended to raise a concern about professional conduct and to seek constructive engagement. Instead, your response chose to characterise me as a “disgruntled competitor” and reframed the matter as a mandate dispute, which it is not.This review does not relate to entitlement to market the property. It relates to:

1. The manner of a public confrontation by your agent, and
2. The lack of acknowledgment or accountability in your office’s follow-up response.

I believe our industry should hold itself to higher standards of professionalism, particularly in public interactions and when concerns about conduct are raised. Your private response, rather than addressing these issues, speaks for itself.My intention is not to tarnish any brand but to highlight the importance of respectful conduct and responsible management of concerns raised.I remain open to a professional and constructive resolution.

Thank you for confirming that the response has been made public.

For the record, my intention in engaging was not to prolong conflict but to seek acknowledgment of a concern regarding professional conduct and the manner in which it was handled thereafter.This matter was never about entitlement to market a property. It concerned:

• a public confrontation by your agent, and
• the subsequent dismissal of that concern when raised privately with your office.

The seller had already withdrawn the property from the market and had expressed her own discomfort regarding repeated contact from the same agent. That context explains why I was communicating with the seller at the time of the incident.It is also worth noting that this review was posted on 2 December, and your response was only provided nearly two months later. This delay further reflects the lack of meaningful engagement with the concern raised.

While you may consider the matter “closed,” the way in which concerns are addressed reflects an organization’s professional standards. I have stated my position respectfully and factually for the sake of transparency.

I will now consider my response complete.