Prentis v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General
[2024] QCAT 130
•25 March 2024
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Prentis v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2024] QCAT 130
PARTIES:
CLIFFORD RALPH PRENTIS (applicant)
v
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR371-20
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
25 March 2024
HEARING DATE:
7 December 2022
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Carrigan
ORDERS:
1. The Tribunal orders that the decision of the delegate of the Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General made on 3 November 2020 to refuse the license renewal application by the Applicant is confirmed.
2. The Tribunal orders that the Application to review a decision of the Chief Executive made on 3 November 2020 and filed by the Applicant in the Tribunal on 1 December 2020 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – AUCTIONEERS AND AGENTS – LICENSES AND REGISTRATION – QUALIFICATIONS – AS TO CHARACTER – where applicant’s application for a real estate agent licence was refused – whether applicant a “suitable person” to be licensed – where applicant had a history of non-compliance when licensed as a real estate agent – applicant’s ill-health – whether applicant capable of satisfactorily performing the activities of a licensed real estate agent
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 18, s 19, s 20, s 21, s 24
Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld), s 36, s 59, s 176
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
Ms J Reedy, Lawyer, Legal Advice & Advocacy, Department of Justice & Attorney General
REASONS FOR DECISION
Clifford Ralph Prentis’ (the Applicant) application for a renewal of a Real Estate Licence was refused by a delegate of the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (the Chief Executive).
The Chief Executive refused the application on the grounds the Applicant was not a suitable person to hold a licence as a real estate agent.
The Applicant has filed in the Tribunal an Application to review the decision of the Chief Executive.
Background Facts
On 16 June 1994 the Applicant obtained a real estate agent licence.
Subsequently, the Applicant was the sole director of Wayjac Pty Ltd (Wayjac) which obtained on 11 May 1998 a licence as a real estate agent.
The Chief Executive says that from 2006 both the Applicant and Wayjac were involved in substantial compliance issues in respect of the license as real estate agents. These compliance issues related to such things as;
(a)failure to lodge audit reports within the relevant time limits. There were repeated incidents of this failure from 13 October 2006 up to at least 2019.
(b)failure to be appointed as an agent in writing;
(c)breach of Enforceable Undertakings dated 13 December 2016 by reason of failure to lodge audit reports within time limits and failure to disperse monies within 14 days of request or within 42 days of entitlement respectively;
(d)On 20 April 2019 both the Applicant and Wayjac were prosecuted in the Brisbane Magistrates Court relating to failure to lodge audit reports within time limits resulting in;
(i) Wayjac receiving a fine of $10,000.00 plus costs. A conviction was not recorded;
(ii) The Applicant receiving a fine of $2,000.00. A conviction was not recorded.
(e)On 23 July 2019 the licence for Wayjac was suspended for failure to lodge audit reports for trust accounts for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017;
(f)On 13 August 2019 the Office of Fair Trading froze the trust accounts held by Wayjac after investigations revealed possible misapplication of trust money;
(g)On 10 September 2019 a receiver was appointed of Wayjac by the Office of Fair Trading over the trust accounts due to;
(i) history of failure to lodge audit reports 2006, 2011, 2014 and 2015;
(ii) failure to comply with the Enforcement Undertaking agreed to in 2016;
(iii) successful prosecution in the Brisbane Magistrates Court in 2019;
(iv) having a licence suspended for failure to lodge audit reports in the periods ending 2017 in 2018;
(v) having trust accounts frozen because of possible misapplication of trust money
(h)On 5 December 2019 Wayjac was issued with an Infringement Notice relating to failure to lodge audit reports within the time limit for the period 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018;
(i)failing to cooperate with the Office of Fair Trading inspectors in providing information requested by letter 26 August 2020.
On 6 April 2020 the Applicant applied to the Chief Executive to renew his real estate license.
On 26 August 2020 the Office of Fair Trading requested the Applicant to provide further information in relation to his application and also to provide submissions in support of that application.
On 24 September 2020 the Applicant responded to the request for information from the Office of Fair Trading. That response contained information about significant health issues suffered by the Applicant since 2006.
On 3 November 2020 the delegate of the Chief Executive made the decision to refuse the grant of a real estate agent’s licence to the Applicant. The ground for that refusal was based on the delegate’s decision that the Applicant was not a suitable person for a real estate agent’s licence.
1 December 2020 the Applicant filed in the Tribunal an Application to review the decision of the Chief Executive made on 3 November 2020. In that Application the Applicant said that that the decision was wrong or not properly made as extenuating circumstances have not been taken into account when making the decision.
The Tribunal conducted several Directions Hearing for the parties to file material in the Tribunal and the otherwise prepare for the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is conferred by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the QCAT Act) and the “enabling Act”.[1]
[1]QCAT Act s 17.
A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief Executive made pursuant to s 59 of the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) (the Act) may apply to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.[2]
[2]s 176 of the Act.
In these proceedings the decision of the Chief Executive made on 3 November 2020 was made pursuant to s 59 of the Act and the Act is the “enabling Act”.
The Application for a review of the decision of the Chief Executive is made to the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal. That jurisdiction requires that the Tribunal give the parties a fresh hearing on the merits and is to reach the correct and proper decision.[3]
[3]QCAT Act s 20.
In exercising the review jurisdiction, the Tribunal must decide the review in accordance with the QCAT Act and the enabling act and has the functions of the Chief Executive for the decision made on 3 November 2020.[4]
[4]QCAT Act s 19.
The functions of the Tribunal in carrying out the review is to;[5]
(a)confirm or amend the decision; or
(b)set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or
(c)set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the Tribunal considers appropriate.
[5]QCAT Act s 24.
Eligibility Criteria for a Real Estate Agent Licence
A person applying for a Real Estate Agent Licence has to be both suitable and eligible to be the holder of such a licence.[6]
[6]s 36, s 59(2)(a) of the Act.
In determining whether an Applicant for a real estate licence is a suitable person the Chief Executive has to take into account a number of matters including the character of the Applicant and whether the person has been convicted of an offence against a relevant Act or whether the Applicant is capable of satisfactorily performing the activities of the licensee.[7]
[7]s 36(1) of the Act.
The delegate of the Chief Executive in the decision of 3 November 2020 determined that the Applicant was not a suitable person to hold a real estate licence in accordance with the requirements of;
(a)whether the applicant is capable of satisfactorily performing the activities of a licensee;[8] and
(b)any other thing the Chief Executive may consider under this Act.[9]
[8]s 36(1) (h)(iv) of the Act.
[9]s 36(j) of the Act.
Is the Applicant a Suitable Person for the grant of the Licence
The Applicant says in the Application filed in the Tribunal that the Chief Executive decision is wrong or not properly made as extenuating circumstances were not taken into account when making the decision. The Applicant does not specify in the Application what those extenuating circumstances are and which should have been taken into account.
The Applicant’s Material filed in the Tribunal
The Applicant filed Submissions in the Tribunal on 8 July 2022. Those submissions gave a chronology of events that occurred since 28 February 2020 relating to exchange of emails in connection with the license renewal reapplication. One document included appears to be part of that Application[10] which asks if the Applicant has been found guilty of an offence (excluding traffic or misdemeanour offences) in Queensland or elsewhere, within the last five years. The answer provided by the Applicant is “Yes”. (This document is contradicted by a copy of the full Application for renewal of the licence which records the answer “No”.)[11] Some other email exchanges included emails in March 2020 relating to a payment by Wayjac of $523.16 and attempts to discuss the closure of the CBA Trust Account and the removal of a freezing order. A number of other documents were also attached to this submission which will be discussed below.
[10]Page 8 of 10 of the Application
[11]See the chief Executives s 21 material filed 26 March 2021 at Attachment 2 page 24.
One such document was a detailed submission dated 23 September 2020 in relation to the Applicant’s history of his previous operation of a Real Estate Licence. That document so sets out a detailed history of illness and diagnosis of health issues from 2005 to 2020. Explanations were provided in respect of his attempts to close trust accounts with CBA, late trust audits prior to the onset of his health issues and the consequence of the loss of his business which meant that his wife had come out of retirement and started her own real estate business with assistance from the Applicant. The Applicant states;
I have learnt to address and deal with any health issues that arise by consulting specialists on a regular occasion and take medications to relieve the stress and maintain memory. I have no criminal record. Real Estate has been my life for over 30 years. I have no other trade or skills. I am through the worst of it with my health and have been looking forward to continuing to serve the public and perform the duties of a licence Real Estate Agent.
The Applicant advised the Chief Executive that had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety in 2019 and provided a “Mental Health Care Plan”. That Plan confirmed an earlier medical history of “Polycystic Kidney Disease” with a renal transplant in 2008. Subsequently in 2015 he was diagnosed with a diverticular disease and also was treated by immunosuppressant therapy. The Plan also confirmed the diagnosis of depression including prescribed medication of Atorvastatin and Prednisolone.
The Applicant also includes the decision of the delegate of the Chief Executive made on 3 November 2022 to refuse his application for a real estate licence. The Applicant does not include any material contradicting the contents of the delegates decision.
A further document included is a letter of demand from the Office of Fair Trading dated 8 December 2021 requiring the Applicant to make a payment of $30,143.56 being the costs paid to the Receiver appointed to the real estate business of Wayjac. These costs were for remuneration and costs relating to the receivership. That document also includes an Office of Fair Trading Notice of Appointment of a Receiver given to the Applicant dated 10 September 2019. A letter dated 8 December 2021 was sent to the Applicant in similar terms demanding payment of the amount of $30,143.56.
The Applicant included a letter from the Office of Fair Trading to the Applicant dated 15 December 2021 which discussed his application for a licence and the need to be a suitable person and then stated;
This office is aware that you currently owe a debt to the Chief Executive in the amount of $30,143.56, for receiver fees and outlays, in relation to Wayjac Pty Ltd.
That letter was also filed by the Chief Executive in the s 21 material on 26 March 2021. At Attachment 6 of of that material are documents about the Applicants non-compliance issues since 2006, Enforceable Undertakings issued 13 December 2016 and various contraventions.
The Chief Executives Material filed in the Tribunal
On 26 March 2021 documents were filed in the Tribunal on behalf of the Chief Executive. The documents were described as “Departmental Submission”. Those documents appear to have been filed in response to the Tribunal’s Directions Hearing held on 18 February 2021 for documents pursuant to s 21(2) of the QCAT Act in the possession or under the control of the Chief Executive that may be relevant to the Tribunal’s review of the decision of the delegate. The index to those documents indicated that that there were 19 attachments some of which will be referred to below.
One such document is the “Enforcement Outcomes Report” which confirms the Applicant entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court on about 21 June 2019 to the charges brought against the Applicant and the Wayjac for failing to lodge audit reports for trust accounts.[12] The Report says that the Applicant and Wayjac were each fined $2,000.00 and $10,000.00 respectively.
[12]Chief Executives s 21 material filed 26 March 2021 at Attachment 3.
The Chief Executives material also includes the Enforceable Undertakings given by the Applicant and Wayjac on 17 November 2016.[13] The terms of the Undertaking included the obligation to pay bond money to either the RTA, the property owner or tenant and to follow the advice of the Public Trustee to transfer funds to unclaimed monies.[14] The undertaking also provided that trusts accounts would be closed by 16 December 2016.[15]
[13]Chief Executives s 21 material filed 26 March 2021 at Attachment 9.
[14]Clause 4.3.5.
[15]Clause 4.5.7.
In an exchange of emails, offices in the Office of Fair Trading confirmed that the appointment of receivers had come to an end in April 2020 and documents were being prepared to unfreeze the trust accounts with CBA.[16]
[16]Chief Executive s 21 material filed 26 March 2021 at Attachment 15.
The Chief Executive requested the Applicant on 26 August 2020 to provide further information and material in relation to the application for real estate agent licence. That letter again set out the history of non-compliance by the Applicant and Wayjac from 2006, the Enforceable Undertakings issued 13 December 2016, details in contravention and the terms of the undertaking.[17]
[17]Chief Executive s 21 material filed 26 March 2021 at Attachment 13.
The Applicant responded to the Chief Executives request by letter dated 23 September 2020 referring to significant health issues commencing in 2005 with a diagnosis of Chronic Polycystic Kidney Disease and stating his need to continue to perform as a licensed real estate agent to avoid hardship.[18]
[18]Chief Executive s 21 material filed 26 March 2021 at Attachment 14.
The s 21 of the QCAT Act documents also included the Suspension Notice dated 23 July 2019 for the corporate real estate licence of the Wayjac. That Notice said that the licence was suspended as audit reports of trust accounts for the periods of 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017 were due to be filed by 30 April 2018 and despite written requests the audit reports have not been received by the Chief Executive.[19]
[19]Chief Executive s 21 material filed 26 March 2021 at Attachment 6.
A number of other documents were included in the s 21 of QCAT Act documents provided on behalf of the Chief Executive. Some of these documents appear to be internal departmental communications between officers or internal summaries of events relating to the Applicant and Wayjac. For example “Related Notes” are included and appear to be internal departmental summaries of events. At best they are secondary evidence of the events referred to, but generally those Notes lack relevant details of the relevant events. The best evidence is the actual documents with personal observations of the events referred to in those “Related Notes”. In the fact finding exercise of the Tribunal hearing, those types of documents such as “Related Notes” are of little assistance to the Tribunal. The fact also that quite a few of the s 21 of the QCAT documents (see the bundle of attachments to the Respondents Affidavit filed 26 March 2021) were not in any chronological order (or logical order) is a further matter that did not assist the Tribunal despite the pre-hearing Directions made by the Tribunal that documents should be in chronological or logical order.[20] That Tribunal Direction required the Chief Executive to file in the Tribunal it’s witness statements of reasons and the documents and provided as follows;
An indexed and page numbered bundle in date or other logical order of the documents and other material in its possession or under its control that may be relevant to the Tribunal’s review of the decision.
[20]Tribunal Directions by S M Aughterson dated 18 February 2021 at Direction No. 3.
Consideration of the Application for Review
The Applicant seeks an order from the Tribunal in these proceedings that will in effect renew his real estate agent licence and enable him to carry on that occupation.
The issue that has to be decided is whether or not the Applicant is a suitable person to hold a real estate agent licence.
The Applicant’s material referred to above relies very heavily on the significant episodes of ill-health which commenced in about 2005 with chronic kidney disease the subsequent kidney failure, dialysis, a kidney transplant procedure and subsequent use of immunosuppressant medications accompanied by periods of hospitalisation. His medical issues went on to include diagnosis for enlarged prostate, hearing problems, and severe depression and anxiety with treatment by medication.
However, while matters such as his ill-health and subsequent care are matters to which the Tribunal will take into account, the issue still remains whether taking into account the relevant matters ins 36(1) of the Act, is the Applicant a suitable person for a licence. The critical criteria is whether;
(a)the Applicant is capable of satisfactorily performing the activities of the licensee;[21] and
(b)any other matter which the Tribunal may consider under this Act.[22]
[21]s 36(1)(h)(iv) of the Act.
[22]s 36(1)(j) of the Act.
The material from the Chief Executive, to which references have already been made, focuses very much on the events giving rise to the Applicant’s plea of guilty in the Brisbane Magistrates Court and subsequent events relating to suspension of licenses and the appointment of receivers. Facts supporting these matters have been provided in that material by the chief Executive in accordance withs 21 0f the QCAT Act.
The decision by the Chief Executive took into account additional facts relating to the Applicant’s “Compliance History” from 2006 and in particular the failure to lodge a number of audit reports within time limits or failing to be appointed in writing as a real estate agent. As these facts were before the delegate at the time of the decision on 3 November 2020 the Tribunal expected to have, but did not find, documents in the s 21 of QCAT Act documents relating to these earlier events. This lack of evidence in the documents filed by the Chief Executive appears to come to the notice of the legal representatives of the Chief Executive at the Tribunal hearing as Applicant was cross-examined extensively in respect of each of the compliance issues in the delegates decision. The response by the Applicant to that cross-examination was to admit each of the individual instances of non-compliance referred to in the decision of 3 November 2020. The Applicant did not dispute (except in a couple of minor instances) that history of non-compliance and agreed that those events in the delegates decision of 3 November 2020 had occurred. As a result of these admissions by the Applicant, the lack of evidence in the s 21 of QCAT Act documents was in effect cured by the cross-examination resulting in evidence now being before the Tribunal relating to each of the events of non-compliance in the delegates decision.
In the circumstances there was no controversy between the parties as to the events relating to the Applicants “Compliance History”, Enforceable Undertakings issued 13 December 2016, Contravention and Non-Compliance with the Undertaking as described in the delegates decision dated 3 November 2026. The Tribunal finds that the following facts have been established in relation to the period from 2006 when the Applicant previously held a real estate licence;
(a)failing to lodge an audit report within the time limit specified in the infringement notice issued on 13 October 2006 for a breach of s 402(2) of the now repealed Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act2000;
(b)failing to be appointed in writing as specified in the infringement notice issued on 23 January 2009 for a breach of s 133(1) of the repealed Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act2000;
(c)failing to lodge an audit report within the time limit as specified in infringement notice issued on 11 May 2011 for a breach of s 402(2) of the repealed Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act2000;
(d)failing to lodge an audit report within the time limit as specified in the infringement notice issued on 10 September 2014 for a breach of s 402(2) of the repealed Property Agent and Motor Dealers Act 2000;
(e)failing to lodge an audit report within the time limit as specified in the infringement notice issued on 19 October 2015 for a breach of s 35(2) of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld);
(f)failing to lodge an audit report within the time limit and failing to disperse money within 14 days of request or within 42 days of entitlement;
(g)the Applicant entering into an Enforceable Undertaking dated 13 December 2016 for breaches of s 35(2) and s 22(5) of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld). This Undertaking was entered into by the Applicant after an investigation into the following conduct;
(i) Wayjac held a large number of unclaimed monies within a trust account;
(ii) Wayjac failed on 76 occasions to pass on monies to the persons entitled to them during the period from 2007 to 31 December 2015;
(iii) Wayjac failed on 29 occasions to pass bond money on to the persons entitled during the period of from 2011 to 31 December 2015;
(iv) Wayjac failed to close a trust account which was no longer in use and which the Office of Fair Trading in 2012 had directed that the closure of that account;
(v) Wayjac did not close a trust account and the failed, on two occasions, to pass on monies in the trust account to the persons entitled during the period from 2012 to 31 December 2015;
(vi) Wayjac failed to submit the 2015 audit reports within four months after the last day of the audit period. Wayjac did not apply for an extension within the required timeframe and failed to submit the audit reports to the Chief Executive until 16 August 2016
(h)being prosecuted in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 29 April 2019 for breaching s 35(2) of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld) for failure to lodge an audit report within time resulting in;
(i) a fine against Wayjac of $10,000.00 plus costs. A conviction was not recorded.
(ii) a fine against the Applicant $2,000.00. A conviction was not recorded.
(i)on 23 July 2019 the licence of all Wayjac was suspended for failure to lodge audit reports on two trust accounts for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017;
(j)on 13 August 2019 the Office of Fair Trading froze the trust accounts held by Wayjac after an investigation revealed possible misapplication of trust monies;
(k)on 10 September 2019 a receiver was appointed by the Office of Fair Trading over the trust accounts as a result of the conduct of the Applicant and Wayjac in conducting the license as real estate agents as has already been detailed above;
(l)on 5 December 2019 Wayjac was issued with an Infringement Notice for breach of s 35(2) of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld)
(m)Failing to comply with the Enforceable Undertaking of 2 December 2016 with respect to;
(i) failing to lodge audit reports trust accounts within the required timeframe for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017; and
(ii) failing to close a trust account by 16 December 2016 which trust account remained open for a subsequent period of time.
These events and circumstances are accepted by the Tribunal as part of the history of non-compliance by the Applicant between 2006 and 2020.
Because of the Tribunals finding of facts in these proceedings, the Applicant’s history of non-compliance while a licensed real estate agent, or as the sole director of Wayjac, demonstrates a continuous and lengthy period of failure to properly carry out and undertake the responsibilities of a licensed real estate agent from 2006 to at least 2019. The Applicant’s failure to comply with his obligations as a licensed real estate agent for a prolonged period of time demonstrates that the Applicant during that period was not capable of satisfactorily performing the activities of a licensed real estate agent as required by s 36(1)(h)(iv) of the Act. The Applicant was clearly not a suitable person during that period of non-compliance. The non-compliance was substantial and related to failure to lodge trust account audits, financial matters and in the Applicant’s dealing with the public.
The Tribunal is very aware of the extended period of significant ill-health suffered by the Applicant since 2005. More recently since 2018 the Applicant appears to have recovered from the more serious issues relating to his kidney disease but nevertheless from 2019 was diagnosed with depression and anxiety which has been the subject of a health plan and that condition is being treated by medication. If it was the case that the Applicant’s ill-health substantially impacted on his compliance with statutory obligations as a licensed real estate agent, then it would be expected he would have made suitable arrangements to satisfy those obligations in that period dating from 13 October 2006 to ensure compliance. There is no evidence before the Tribunal in that period up until approximately 2019 the Applicant took any steps whatsoever to satisfy his statutory obligations notwithstanding his significant ill-health. A person who was capable of satisfactorily performing the obligations relating to reporting and financial matters would have taken steps, if not initially, at least for a substantial period between 2006 and 2019 to ensure compliance. The Applicant in these proceedings did not do so. The absence of any such evidence demonstrates the lack of suitability of the Applicant and that he was not capable of satisfactorily performing the activities of a licensee as required by s 36(1)(h)(iv) of the Act.
An issue arises in terms of what is the relevant date to demonstrate that he is a suitable person to hold a licence within the criteria specified in s 36(1) of the Act. The evidence so far deals with his history of non-compliance through until 2019. His application to renew the real estate licence was made on 6 April 2020. The decision of the delegate to refuse that application was made on 3 November 2020. The Applicant’s Application to review that decision was then given a “fresh hearing” in the Tribunal 7 December 2022. The question arises as to whether, notwithstanding the history of non-compliance 2019, is there evidence now available to the Tribunal which would show that either at the date of the delegate’s decision or at the time of the Tribunal’s hearing of the review of that decision that the Applicant is capable of satisfactorily performing the activities of a licensee. The Applicant’s evidence includes his long history of ill-health and his statement that;[23]
I have learned to address and deal with any health issues that arise by consulting specialists on a regular occasion and taking medication to relieve the stress and maintain memory. I have no criminal record. Real Estate has been my life for over 30 years. I have no other trade or skills. I am through the worst of it with my health and have been looking forward to continuing to serve the public and perform the duties of a licence Real Estate Agent.
[23]See the Applicant’s Submissions filed 8 July 2022 attaching his submission to OFT of 23 September 2020.
While the Applicant refers to the improvement in his health issues the Applicant does not address in any way that he has taken any steps to ensure satisfactory compliance with statutory obligations into the future as a real estate agent. There is no evidence the Applicant has taken any steps since 2019 to educate himself to a better understanding of the statutory obligations or to address is knowledge of the appropriate compliance of relevant timeframes he would have to meet should he be re-licensed. The position appears to be that the Applicant has experienced an improvement in his health condition but has not addressed that he is now capable of satisfactorily performing the activities of a licensed real estate agent. There is evidence that the Applicant has been assisting his wife, the licensed real estate agent in charge of the “Professionals Cleveland”. However none of thatexperience during that period is, according to the evidence before the Tribunal, extends to the issues of compliance, dealing with trust accounts, proper handling of financial affairs and the dealings with the public which has been previously referred to in these proceedings.
On the evidence available the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is capable of satisfactorily performing the activities of a licence real estate agent as required by s 36(1)(h)(iv) of the Act. In these circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is a person suitable to hold a licence as a real estate agent.
For these reasons the Tribunal will confirm the decision of the delegate of the Chief Executive made on 3 November 2020 and will dismiss the Application to review the decision filed in the Tribunal on 1 December 2020.
0
0
2