Valentino and Gabriel Prundaru gave misleading information, incorrect valuation methods, and advice that did not align with our best interests. Below is a summary of the issues we experienced: --- 1. Misleading or factually incorrect valuation information The realtor repeatedly provided valuation arguments that were inaccurate or unsupported, including: • Using a 1935 flood as a reason to devalue the property, despite no evidence that this event has any relevance to current market value. • Using income and cap‑rate arguments that were mathematically incorrect and inconsistent with standard valuation practices for mixed‑use commercial land. These statements created confusion and undermined our ability to make informed decisions. --- 2. Pressure to accept a significantly lower offer Throughout the listing period, we felt pressured to accept a specific buyer’s low offer. The realtor repeatedly emphasized negative or misleading information to justify a lower price, rather than providing balanced, accurate market analysis. This behaviour made us feel that our interests were not being prioritized. --- 3. Failure to provide competent, unbiased advice The realtor’s valuation approach relied on: • selective use of comparables • incorrect financial calculations This falls below the standard of competence and care we expected from a licensed professional. --- 4. Impact on us as the clients As a result of the above: • We felt misled and unable to rely on the realtor’s advice • We lost confidence in the accuracy of the information provided • We believe the conduct may have affected our ability to negotiate effectively