[2022] NZIACDT 17 — SU v Murthy (Nirmala K Murthy)

Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal · decided 18 July 2022 · adviser: Nirmala K Murthy

The Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal's published summary

Diligence and due care / adviser failed to check whether staff had correctly filed NZQA application & did not personally check after being asked by client / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s7, s442, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl18a, cl26c, cl28a, cl29f / HELD / breach of cl1 / failing to check on NZQA application for two months is an unacceptable delay / dishonesty allegations not established / adviser’s responses to client regarding NZQA application inquiries in good faith, not dishonest / belatedly paid NZQA fee after complainant terminated work visa services / should have checked client wished to proceed, but payment not dishonest because of belief NZQA application services had not been terminated / advice that EOI selections would recommence unduly optimistic, not deceitful / breach of cl18a / no service contract for work visa / breach of cl28a & cl26c / no written confirmation of termination of services or oral advice given / complaint upheld

Read the full decision (PDF, Ministry of Justice)

This page reproduces the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal's own published summary as a fair report of public proceedings; the linked decision is the authoritative record. A decision is not itself a finding of wrongdoing — some complaints are dismissed. Complainants are anonymised by the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. Complaints about advisers go to the Immigration Advisers Authority.