It felt real. It was a huge amount of money—and it was just gone.
In the competitive pressure of London's rental market, at least twenty-four young people — most of them students beginning new chapters of their lives — arrived at the same east London flat on moving day to find not keys, but each other. A coordinated fraud, built on false identities, fabricated credentials, and the manufactured urgency that preys on those who can least afford to lose, stripped them of more than £60,000 combined. It is a story as old as exploitation itself: those navigating unfamiliar systems, under time pressure, are made to feel that hesitation is the greater risk.
- Twenty-four tenants paid deposits for the same Poplar flat and only discovered the fraud when multiple groups arrived simultaneously on moving day, each expecting keys that did not exist.
- The scam was architecturally convincing — a professional-looking website, fabricated industry accreditations, and different landlord names and bank accounts assigned to different victims to obscure the pattern.
- Rental fraud losses in England and Wales have nearly doubled in four years, reaching £14.5 million in 2025, as scammers increasingly exploit platform-listed properties and off-platform payment flows.
- One victim created a WhatsApp group to connect the defrauded tenants; another managed to recover most of his money through his bank; Kent Police is now investigating the case.
- Platforms like OpenRent removed the listing and suspended the account, but warned that off-platform payments — which the victims made — fall outside their protection systems, leaving most with little recourse.
Mide Awosika was twenty years old when she and two flatmates paid £12,000 to secure a four-bedroom flat in Poplar ahead of the new university term. The letting agent, who called himself Derrick Fringe, had urged them to act fast after a July viewing. On moving day in August, there were no keys — only nine other groups of people standing outside the same building, each expecting the same flat.
Awosika created a WhatsApp group to gather the victims. By the end, twenty-three others had come forward, all defrauded through the same agent, all for the same address. Among them: Freazy Warr, twenty-four, whose moving van was turning into the street when a friend warned him to stop; Satchit Warade, who called the agent between twenty and thirty times on moving day before being told an eviction was being arranged — and then never heard from him again; and a student named Samyek, whose group transferred more than £26,000 to a person listed as landlord, though victims had been given different landlord names and bank details throughout.
The operation behind the fraud was elaborate. The letting agency, Propertiesmatter.com, presented itself as a major UK real estate firm with eight branches and 170 staff. It claimed membership in Arla Propertymark — which had no record of it. A complaints address linked to an unrelated company, which told the BBC it was itself a victim of corporate identity theft. The BBC traced an email connected to the listed landlord, Edward Robinson, who appeared to have purchased the property earlier that year — and whose email account was also linked to the letting agent. Robinson declined to answer questions. Fringe did not respond.
Rental fraud in England and Wales has grown sharply in financial cost even as case numbers have slightly declined: losses nearly doubled from £7.2 million in 2021 to £14.5 million in 2025. OpenRent removed the listing and suspended the account after being contacted, but noted that off-platform payments — which victims made, against the platform's guidance — limit its ability to help. Zoopla did not respond. Samyek was among the few to recover most of his money, through his bank. Kent Police is investigating.
Industry bodies advise renters to verify agent credentials, resist urgency, and avoid payments made outside official platforms. For Awosika, the lesson came at a steep price. "It felt real," she said. "Telling my mum was awful. It was a huge amount of money — and it was just gone."
Mide Awosika was twenty years old and thought she had found her dream flat. She and two flatmates pooled their money and paid a £12,000 deposit to rent a four-bedroom property in Poplar, east London, ahead of the new university term at Queen Mary. The letting agent, who called himself Derrick Fringe, had told them after a July viewing that competition was fierce and they needed to act fast. They handed over three months' rent upfront, along with holding and security deposits. Then, on moving day in August, there were no keys waiting. Instead, Awosika arrived to find nine other groups of people standing outside the same building, each one expecting to collect keys to the same flat.
The property had been listed on Zoopla and OpenRent, two of the UK's largest rental platforms. Fringe had told Awosika's group that existing tenants were refusing to leave and that bailiffs would be needed to remove them. Then he stopped answering calls. When Awosika realized the scope of what had happened—group after group arriving with the same expectation, the same disappointment—she created a WhatsApp group to track the victims and share information. By the time she finished gathering accounts, twenty-three other people had contacted her claiming they had been targeted in identical fashion, all through the same agent, all for the same flat.
Freazy Warr was twenty-four. He and four flatmates had transferred £7,200 to secure the property. As their moving van pulled into the road, a friend warned them to cancel immediately—two other groups were already waiting outside. Warr's lease was ending. He had nowhere else to go. Satchit Warade, a twenty-three-year-old professional working in nearby Canary Wharf, and a colleague had paid £9,460. The agent had rushed them through the viewing, claiming they had forty-five minutes to get there. On moving day, Warade called Fringe between twenty and thirty times. When Fringe finally called back, he said the existing tenants would not move and that he was arranging an eviction. The next day, Fringe was unreachable. Warade reported the matter to police. Another student, Samyek, was part of a group that transferred more than £26,000 to a different person listed as landlord on their contract—though the BBC later found that tenants had been given different landlord names and bank details, all connected to the same address.
The scheme was elaborate. The letting agent operated under the name Propertiesmatter.com, which claimed on its website to be a leading UK real estate agency with eight branches and 170 staff members. That website has since been taken down. The company claimed membership in Arla Propertymark, an industry body. Arla said it had no record of the name. An address listed for complaints linked to Companies House went to an unrelated firm with a similar name. When the BBC contacted that company, a spokesperson said it was unaware its details were being used without consent and that it was itself a victim of corporate identity theft. Using tenancy documents, the BBC traced an email address linked to the person listed as landlord, Edward Robinson, who appeared to have bought the property in March 2025. That same email account was connected to the letting agent. When Awosika's group tried to contact Robinson, they received no reply. When the BBC reached out, Robinson declined to answer questions and ended the call. Fringe did not respond at all.
The scale of rental fraud in Britain has grown sharply. In 2021, there were 4,642 reported cases of rental fraud in England and Wales, costing victims £7.2 million. By 2025, the number of cases had dropped slightly to 4,178, but the total cost had nearly doubled to £14.5 million. The Poplar flat scam represents a concentrated version of a broader vulnerability: renters under pressure, platforms offering little recourse when payments move off-platform, and scammers who understand how to exploit urgency and fear.
OpenRent said it offered sympathies to those affected and claimed to have a comprehensive vetting system in place. Upon receiving the report, it removed the listing and suspended the account pending investigation. But the company also noted that when users choose to pay off-platform against explicit guidance—which appears to have happened here—the platform cannot guarantee the safety of funds and has limited ability to help recover them. Zoopla did not respond to the BBC's questions. Samyek, one of the victims, managed to recover most of his money through his bank after reporting the suspected fraud. The case was passed to Kent Police, which is now investigating.
All the affected tenants told the BBC they felt pressured to pay more than they could afford. The National Residential Landlord Association flagged large upfront payments as a major warning sign and advised prospective tenants to verify that letting agents are legitimate members of reputable bodies like SafeAgent or PropertyMark, to insist on visiting a high street office if one exists, to resist pressure to act quickly, and to avoid deals that seem too good to be true. Awosika said the experience had left her far more cautious. "It was such an elaborate scam," she said. "It felt real. Telling my mum was awful. It was a huge amount of money—and it was just gone."
Notable Quotes
There are so few affordable properties. Students and people without a lot of money are pushed online, where it's harder to know who to trust.— Freazy Warr, 24, one of the defrauded tenants
It was such an elaborate scam. It felt real. Telling my mum was awful.— Mide Awosika, 20, who organized the victims and discovered the fraud
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
What made this scam work so effectively across so many people?
The scam worked because it exploited three things at once: the genuine scarcity of affordable London housing, the speed and anonymity of online rental platforms, and the psychological pressure of having a lease end with nowhere to go. When Fringe told them they had to decide immediately or lose the flat, most people couldn't afford to walk away.
Why didn't the platforms catch this earlier?
Both Zoopla and OpenRent rely on vetting systems, but those systems check whether a listing looks legitimate—whether the property exists, whether the agent claims credentials. They don't prevent someone from creating a fake agent identity with a professional-looking website and then advertising the same property multiple times under different landlord names. The real vulnerability opened up when people paid off-platform, directly into bank accounts. Once money leaves the platform, the platform has almost no power to help.
Did anyone get their money back?
Samyek recovered most of his through his bank after reporting it as fraud. But that required knowing to do it quickly and having a bank willing to reverse the transfer. Most of the others—Awosika, Warr, Warade—are still out the money. The case is with Kent Police now, but recovery is uncertain.
What strikes you most about the victims' accounts?
The emotional weight. Awosika had to tell her mother she'd lost £12,000. Warr was terrified of homelessness. Warade called the experience harrowing and said it made him lose trust in how the rental market works. These weren't people being careless. They were people doing what everyone does—renting a flat—and being systematically deceived by someone who understood exactly how to make them feel trapped.
Is this getting worse?
The numbers suggest yes. Rental fraud cases have stayed roughly flat, but the money stolen has nearly doubled in four years. That means scammers are getting better at targeting people with more money to lose—students, young professionals—and at extracting larger sums per victim. This Poplar flat scam is probably not unique. It's just the one that got caught because Awosika had the presence of mind to organize the victims.