| FIRST she agrees to rent her flat and collects money from one tenant. Then she does the same with another. And another.  | | Pictures: Jonathan Choo | One tenant who turns up to move into the five-room HDB flat in Marsiling runs into another who is there trying to do the same. They are not the only ones. And the landlord is nowhere to be found. Property agent Koh Chek Poo, 54, said he and his client got a rude shock when they went to the flat on the day his client was to move in. The flat appeared empty. Then, another agent, Madam Jacqueline Foo, 40, showed up with her client - who was there to move into the same flat. Said Madam Foo: 'When we saw each other, I asked, 'Eh, how come you're here?' Then we realised that we had contracts to the same unit.' Mr Koh, who is from a different real estate agency, added: 'We both had keys to the flat. It was handed over to us when the tenancy agreement was signed. 'But both sets of keys could not open the locks on the gate and door to the unit.' Mr Koh said his tenant had paid $1,300 as deposit to the owner and another $1,300 as the first month's rent. This was in early October when there was another tenant in the flat. The owner, known to several property agents as Diana, then handed over a set of of the flat keys so that Mr Koh's client could move into the flat on 2 Nov. She did the same with Madam Foo and her client. Mr Koh's client made a police report. Later, it was discovered that at least one other person has a tenancy agreement to the same flat and was supposed to move in last month. In all, it is estimated that the landlord collected over $4,000 from the three tenants, though the flat was never handed over. The New Paper met a group of six property agents - including Mr Koh and Madam Foo - who say they have been misled by the Marsiling unit owner. At the meeting on Wednesday, at the office of one of the property consultants, a third agent produced a tenancy agreement to the same flat. It was the first time that this agent, Mr Bob Abdullah, 33, was meeting Mr Koh and Madam Foo. Mr Bob showed us a tenancy agreement between one of his clients and Diana. It was also for one year, overlapping the rental period indicated on Mr Koh's and Madam Foo's agreements. The agents claim that Diana and another home owner known as Nora are notorious for doing this. WOODLANDS SCAM Nora has a five-room HDB flat in Woodlands, and the agents alleged that she also has signed more than one tenancy agreement for the same period. The agents estimate that each woman has pocketed more than $3,000 from doing this in the last two months. In Nora's case, one agent, while chatting with a colleague, found out they had both helped tenants secure the same flat on Woodlands Street 31. Property agent Lindy Tan, 41, said: 'I met another agent, and we were just chatting about work and he told me he was having problems with one home owner who did not want to give up the flat after signing a tenancy agreement. 'It was then that we realised that it was the same unit which my client had just signed a (tenancy) contract for.' The other agent was Mr Bob. He and his client met Nora and got the $1,000 deposit back. Madam Tan's clients were not so lucky. Singapore permanent resident Daniel Dai, 26, and his friend, were looking for a flat because the lease on their previous one was expiring in October. Through Madam Tan, they found a Woodlands flat to their liking. It belonged to Nora. After viewing the flat, they signed the tenancy agreement for one year beginning 1 Nov, paid the one-month deposit of $1,100 to Nora on the spot and was issued a receipt. But when it was time for the China nationals to move into the flat, Nora wanted more time. Mr Dai, an interior designer, said: 'The owner called to postpone the move-in date from 1 Nov to 6 Nov. She said her new flat was not ready. 'But on the 5th, she called again and asked to meet and discuss something.' Mr Dai met her the next day. He said: 'She again gave excuses and asked if we could wait till 15 Nov. Otherwise, she would give back my deposit. We couldn't keep waiting for her to move out. So we asked for our money back.' But, despite numerous attempts to get their money back, Mr Dai and his friend only got a variety of excuses. They are now considering going to the Small Claims Tribunal to reclaim the $1,100 deposit. 'Between the two of us, the amount we lost is about $800 each, including agent's fee. It may not seem like much, but to us it's very painful. 'It's about half a month's salary for me,' Mr Dai said. The agent's fee was due once the tenancy agreement was signed and they paid it. Attempts by The New Paper to reach Nora and Diana were unsuccessful. On one of Nora's known contact numbers, the woman who answered claimed she was a friend of Nora's, but did not have her number. Police confirmed they have received complaints against the two women, and have advised those affected about what legal options they have against the women.
Property agents fed-up IT was not the tenants, but the agents who called The New Paper to complain. They are fed-up with these home-owners and want to expose them to save potential tenants the heartache, they said. They also felt that what is happening is not good for the image of Singapore. Property agents say these people usually engage an agent to market their flat for rent, collect deposits from different people and take off with the money. The frustrated agents want these culprits to be taken to task. Madam Jamila Pouzi, 41, an agent from Aspen Property Consultants, said: 'This is clearly a case of fraud... and something needs to be done.' As many of their clients are foreigners, Madam Lindy Tan, 41, also from Aspen Property Consultants, said: 'It's very embarrassing that Singaporeans are doing this to foreigners. 'These people can't carry on cheating others of their money.' Lawyer Soo Poh Huat said tenants who face such situations should lodge a police report and make a complaint with the Housing Board if the apartment is an HDB flat. LANDLORD CAN BE CHARGED
Mr Soo said: 'If police investigations find that it is a case of cheating, they can charge the person in court. 'If the landlord is prosecuted, he or she may refund the money to the tenant as restitution, which can be a strong mitigating factor in his or her defence.' Alternatively, he added, tenants can sue the landlord for a refund of the deposit, as well as claim the agent's fee from the landlord. However, Mr Soo noted that such civil suits involve costs such as legal fees and stamp duties which may be more than the actual claim. | 
