Under the 2023 TREA amendment, the term “customer” was removed from real‑estate forms, replaced by “self‑represented party” (SRP) to clarify that a person who receives no brokerage services is not a client.
Agents still use language that suggests representation
Many brokers continue to say they “brought a self‑represented buyer” or “brought a tenant to the landlord.” The phrasing implies that the agent located the party, showed properties, and helped move the transaction toward completion. In agency terminology, that description matches the services a broker provides to a client, not to an SRP.
RECO Bulletin 2.7 notes that a representation agreement may be written, oral, or implied, and that implied representation begins when an agent gives advice or services without a written agreement. Even when an SRP signs the acknowledgment form, conduct that contradicts the disclosure can still create an implied representation.
When an agent claims they “brought” an SRP, they are effectively asserting the same relationship the SRP form says does not exist, often to justify a commission. The regulation prohibits brokerages from charging self‑represented parties for assistance, yet many agents report receiving the full commission—or more—when they bring an SRP to a seller or landlord.
Related: Agents discuss Kevin O’Leary’s homeownership advice for youth
Leasing transactions highlight the imbalance
Leasing is treated as a full trade under TREA, subject to the same rules, but it is frequently handled by newer agents. An unrepresented tenant who contacts a landlord’s agent may be guided through the application, advised on offer amounts, and coached on paperwork. The tenant, often younger and under time pressure, perceives the agent as helping them, blurring the line between advice and representation.
This scenario intensifies the power imbalance the SRP disclosure intended to address, yet the disclosure is seldom provided in these fast‑moving rental deals. The result is a tenant receiving advice that technically falls outside the permitted scope, without awareness that a rule may have been breached.
One way to view the lack of enforcement is that compliance is high. Practitioners in for‑sale‑by‑owner and rental markets report frequent instances where agents adjust remuneration after “bringing” an SRP, suggesting the rule is routinely sidestepped.
From a practical standpoint, the current complaint‑driven enforcement model may never capture these violations. An SRP who receives helpful advice often feels gratitude rather than grievance, and the deal typically closes without dispute. Without a complaint, regulators have little trigger to investigate, leaving the breach invisible to the affected party.
Related: London property market hit by political uncertainty
Regulators rarely intervene.
What the silence in enforcement records suggests
A review of RECO’s published regulatory actions shows fines for issues such as unverified square footage, unauthorized lockbox use, trust‑account errors, and undisclosed multiple representation. Leasing‑related cases appear, but none directly address the SRP framework itself. Over two and a half years, no decision has penalized an agent for advising an SRP or for missing a disclosure form.
This absence could mean either that agents are fully complying with the new language, or that violations remain hidden because the SRP does not recognize a breach. The latter interpretation aligns with anecdotal evidence from the field, where agents regularly claim to have “brought” an SRP while simultaneously denying any fiduciary duty to that party.
In the end, the distinction between a client and an SRP rests on conduct, not on the label on a form. The industry’s habitual phrasing continues to acknowledge relationships that the paperwork explicitly denies, undermining the purpose of the 2023 amendment.
