The panel members were Mr Neville Pedersen MARLA (Honoured) FNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal), Mr Clive Wood (lay panellist) and Miss Jacqueline Stone FNAEA (member panellist).
The presenting Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Ali Haider. Mr Zaman was in attendance at the hearing via Zoom.
Allegations
The Tribunal considered the allegations set out in the case summary sent to Mr Ahasanur Zai Zaman.
It was alleged that Mr Zaman had acted in contravention of the requirements of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules.
Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules
- Conduct rule 1.7: Access to, or availability of, Client Money
- Conduct rule 1.14: Payments out of a Client (Bank) Account
- Conduct Rule 13: General duty to uphold high standards of ethical and professional behaviour
Decision
After consideration of the submissions and the evidence provided the Tribunal found:
- Conduct rule 1.7: Proven
- Conduct rule 1.14: Proven
- Conduct Rule 13: Proven
Sanctions
After considering Mr Zaman’s plea in mitigation, membership record and previous disciplinary record the Tribunal announced the following penalties:
- Conduct rule 1.7: £1000
- Conduct rule 1.14: £1000
- Conduct Rule 13: £1000
In addition, costs of this hearing of £512 were imposed against Mr Zaman in favour of Propertymark.
Closing statement
The Tribunal made the following statement:
'The Tribunal would like to thank Mr Zaman for his attendance at today’s hearing via Zoom.
The correct holding and reporting of deposits is a vital element of being a letting agent and a member of this organisation. The misrepresentation to TDS as to how the deposits were held may have had significant consequences for members of the public.
It is commented by the member that he had not understood the rules of TDS and this is something he should ensure are fully understood.
Mr Zaman has said that all of the deposits registered with TDS are now held by the company and any deposits held by landlords have now been re-registered on TDS.'
The Appeal Panel members were Mr Richard Hair PPNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Appeal Tribunal), Mr Simon O’Brien MARLA, MNAEA (Comm), MNAEA, ANAVA (member panellist) and Mr Stephen Shaw CBE (lay panellist).
The Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Ali Haider. Mr Zaman attended the appeal hearing via telephone, as he had issues joining via Zoom.
Original hearing findings and sanctions
Mr Zaman was found to have acted in breach of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules at the hearing held on 22 June 2022 and the penalties imposed were:
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.7 | Proven | £1,000 |
| Rule 1.14 | Proven | £1,000 |
| Rule 13 | Proven | £1,000 |
The sum of £512 was imposed on the member towards the costs of the hearing.
Appeal decision
After considering the evidence, Mr Zaman’s submission and after deliberation, the Appeal Tribunal made the following statement of findings:
'In respect of Rule 1.7, we make a fine of £1000.
In respect of Rule 1.14, we make a fine of £1000.
In respect of Rules 13, we make a fine of £1000.
In addition, there are costs of £679.20 for today’s hearing
In addition, we ask that Propertymark undertakes a compliance visit of the business. The cost of this compliance visit will be at the member’s expense.
Our comments are as follows; the Tribunal finds that the original fines were entirely appropriate and proportionate. The Tribunal notes that the member believes his business is fully in order and we trust the compliance visit will prove this to be the case
Decision summary
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.7 | Proven | £1,000 |
| Rule 1.14 | Proven | £1,000 |
| Rule 13 | Proven | £1,000 |
Additional costs of £679.20 for the Appeal Hearing were imposed on Mr Zaman in favour of Propertymark.
Download the full report
The downloadable report shows the full details of the rules involved in this case.