The panel members were Mr Jim Atkins PPNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal), Miss Jacqueline Stone FNAEA (member panellist) and Ms. Gillian Fleming (lay panellist).
The presenting Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Faizan Rashid. Mr Haydar Sehri was in attendance in the hearing.
Allegations
The Tribunal considered the allegations set out in the case summary sent to Mr Haydar Sehri.
It was alleged that Mr Haydar Sehri had acted in contravention of the requirements of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules.
- Conduct Rule 1.13: Payments into a Client (bank) Account
- Conduct Rule 1.14: Payments out of a Client (Bank) Account
- Conduct Rule 1.18: Record keeping
- Conduct Rule 1.19: Books of record
- Conduct Rule 13: General duty to uphold high standards of ethical and professional behaviour
- Conduct Rule 23: Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Decisions
Mr Haydar Sehri admitted the alleged breaches.
- Conduct Rule 1.13: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.14: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.18: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.19: Proven
- Conduct Rule 13: Proven
- Conduct Rule 23: Proven
Sanctions
- Conduct Rule 1.13, 1.18, 1.19 and 13.1.2: £3,000
- Conduct Rule 23: £500
In addition, costs of this hearing of £477 were imposed against Haydar Sehri in favour of Propertymark.
Closing Statement
The Tribunal made the following statement:
'We thank Mr Sehri for attending today, it enabled the tribunal members to more fully understand this case. Some of the agreements that Mr Sehri operates with landlords and tenants fall outside of the client account regulations and should be banked, recorded and reconciled in a separate business account (non-client). Mr Sehri acts as a direct tenant and landlord, which falls outside of the client relationship. In respect of rent guarantee, any shortfall of rent paid by the tenant, should be paid directly by Mr Sehri from a non—client account. To that extent and client account rules have been breached.
It follows that the accounting records are deficient, and that Mr Sehri must introduce adequate systems to be compliant with Propertymark regulations. We have listened carefully to Mr Sehri’s explanation of his actions to date and explained his errors and given suggested remedies to his current practices. Mr Sehri is currently suspended from membership and must remove his designatory letters and any references to Propertymark and its divisions from his public facing documents and website immediately. He should take urgent steps to implement compliant systems within 6 months, whereupon he should pay for a further compliance inspection prior to membership reinstatement.'
The panel members were Mr. Neville Pedersen MARLA (Honoured) FNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal), Mrs. Janine Hytch FARLA, FNAEA, FNAVA (member panellist) and Mr Steven Shaw (lay panellist).
The presenting Case Officer for Propertymark was Miss Farrah Gibson. Mr Sehri was in attendance via Zoom.
Original hearing findings and sanctions
Mr Sehri was found to have acted in breach of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules at the hearing held on 27 September 2022 and the penalties imposed were:
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.13 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.18 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.19 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 13 (13.1.2) | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 23 | Proven | £500 |
The sum of £477 was imposed on the member towards the costs of the hearing.
Appeal decision
After considering the evidence, Mr Sehri’s submission and after deliberation, the Appeal Tribunal made the following statement of findings:
'The tribunal wishes to thank Mr Sehri and Miss Sehri for attending today’s appeal hearing. We note that the specific breaches that are being appealed are 1.18, 1.19 and Rule 13.
As we have advised the role of the appeal tribunal is to review the decision of the original tribunal hearing without admitting new evidence. There was a suggestion that Rules 1.18 and 1.19 had not been considered at the original tribunal, but they were clearly presented at the start and were in your own summing up.
In relation to Rule 13, as we said, this rule can apply if breaches of other rules are admitted or found proven. We are hesitant to add we are not suggesting any dishonesty. It is the decision of this appeal tribunal that the appeal against the findings and penalties from the original tribunal is rejected.
There are costs of todays hearing of £574.35.
Thank you.'
Decision summary
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.13 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.18 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.19 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 13 (13.1.2) | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 23 | Proven | £500 |
Download the full report
The downloadable report shows the full details of the rules involved in this case.