Fake Signature – Real Estate Company Runs by Unsuspecting Woman – News
contents
She is supposed to pay money for an apartment that they never rented.
In November 2019, Daniela H. received a notice of attachment in her mailbox. In it, the company Privera – a large Swiss real estate management company – calls for CHF 8,407 for outstanding rents in Geneva. Daniela H. thinks of a mistake. She neither knows the Privera company nor does she have any connection to Geneva.
She also contacts Privera. There she learns that there is a demand for a rental apartment in Meyrin. She finds out from the debt enforcement office that various reminders and a payment order have been sent to the address in Meyrin in advance. Daniela H. knows nothing about this. However, she finds out that her ex-husband’s relatives have rented an apartment at the address in question and have stopped paying rent as of 2019. Daniela H. demands a copy of the rental agreement and is flabbergasted. Her name was there, but: “I never signed this contract, the signature was forged.” Privera writes “Kassensturz” that the lease was delivered to the address of Daniela H. and her ex-husband in 2005. Daniela H. says that at the time of delivery she was no longer at the usual address and knew nothing about this rental agreement.
Privera goes to court
She immediately tries to prove that she is not the tenant. Time is of the essence, because shortly before an attachment, she can no longer submit a legal proposal to stop the process. Daniela H. handed over the confirmation of residence from the city of Bern and a copy of her ID – as requested – to the Australian Privera managing director. She points out that her signature, and probably that of her ex-husband, have been forged.
The visit of the foreclosure officer was very bad and humiliating for me.
Without success. The debt collection process continues and the seizure officer is at the door. “It was very bad and humiliating,” recalls Daniela H. The entry in the debt enforcement register is also limited, and the matter threatens to get too much for her. She seeks help from lawyer Markus Kobel. He criticizes: “Privera cannot be dissuaded from the wrong path, despite all the documents submitted.” On the contrary: after the debt enforcement procedure, Privera is filing a lawsuit in court and is now demanding a total of 18,242 francs and the rental deposit of 6,750 francs.
No end in sight
Markus Kobel tries to clarify the case with Privera. But Ms. H. replies: “We have no evidence that shows that the signature on the rental agreement is clearly and unequivocally not yours.” Therefore, one currently sees no legal basis for being able to forego further steps. The enforcement was initiated against the persons to whom the lease was issued. That is legal correctness.
Markus Kobel does not find these arguments sound, he criticizes that Privera is suing the wrong person. At the request of “Kassensturz” Privera writes: “We have taken into account all available and known documents. To date, there is no document that legally confirms a possible forgery of the signature.”
Daniela H. is now waiting for a graphological report, in the meantime she has filed a criminal complaint for forgery. The whole thing is very stressful for her: “It feels like carrying a heavy stone in your backpack. And there is no goal, no end in sight.”