A Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) tribunal concluded that three tenants who unknowingly rented an apartment from an imposter instead of the actual property owner, won’t be getting any of their deposits back as there is “nothing legally to be returned”.
The case heard in June involved Wesley Nicastro, Weslley Frazao and Tairis Silva who had supposedly entered a rental agreement with a man posing as the landlord and co-owner of a flat located on Church Street East, Dublin 3. This man was referred to as ‘Mr X’ in the RTB’s report issued on Tuesday.
However, the real property owner, Natawan Saijaiboon, who lives in Belfast, explained that ‘Mr X’, reportedly a convicted drug dealer now behind bars, was an acquaintance of an acquaintance and resided in her property ahead of an intended move overseas. She mentioned he played the role of a caretaker and helped with bills but did not consistently pay a set rent.
Though the tenants had been residing in the property since October 2022, Saijaiboon confessed to being oblivious to their presence until she chose to sell the property in September 2023. The lease agreement between ‘Mr X’ and the tenants included Saijaiboon’s signature, which she claimed was fraudulent.
One tenant, Nicastro, informed the tribunal that he was led to believe by ‘Mr X’ that the property co-owned by the imposter and Saijaiboon, who ‘Mr X’ deceitfully claimed was his partner. The tenants admitted that no cash deposit exchanged hands, instead, ‘Mr X’ instructed them to invest it in restoring the flat which he said had been left in a terrible state by a previous tenant.
According to the occupants, the group relocated to the flat without initially inspecting it and discovered it had been transformed into darkened rooms with noise-proofed walls. The tenants incurred a renovation cost of €2,208 and handed over the remaining €392 to an individual named Mr X. They proceeded to offer him monthly payments of €2,600 for one year, which then rose to €2,652.
Upon figuring out Mr X was not the landlord, they started transferring the rental fees directly to the authentic owner. Regardless, Mr X continued to demand rent from the tenants. Eventually, the situation worsened as the owner started conducting surprise inspections – the tenant recalled an instance where the owner arrived unannounced at 10:30 pm on a Sunday during their Christmas celebrations to paint the flat.
The tenant claimed the landlord attempted to forcibly enter the premises, prompting them to involve law enforcement. The landlord, on the other hand, stated she had no idea there were tenants occupying her property and was bewildered when her key didn’t work.
The following day, the tenant returned home from work to discover the entrance door had been forcibly breached by the landlord, who was intending to replace it, leaving the tenants with an insecure door for a week, as disclosed at the tribunal hearing.
Immediately after, the tenants started exploring alternative living options and vacated the apartment a week later. The tenants’ request for deposit reimbursement was dismissed by the tribunal, asserting that no security deposit had been given to Mr X or the property owner, and it was purportedly utilised for property renovations.
Whether a deposit had been paid or not, the tribunal concluded there was no deposit left to refund. The tribunal also agreed that the property owner was oblivious of the arrangements Mr X had made and the signature on the lease agreement did not belong to her. This all was shared in an edition of our Inside Politics podcast.