Darwin estate agent Suzi Milgate fined after threatening to call cops on tenant over OnlyFans account

A struck-off Darwin real estate agent with a history of harassing her tenants has accumulated thousands in fines after threatening to evict a woman and call the police upon discovering she had an OnlyFans account.

Suzi Milgate outside the Darwin Local Court where she says she will plead not guilty to assaulting former Chief Minister Natasha Fyles. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

A struck-off Darwin real estate agent with a history of harassing her tenants has accumulated more than $18,000 in fines after threatening to evict a woman and call the police upon discovering she had an OnlyFans account.

Suzi Milgate – who is fighting a charge of assaulting former Chief Minister Natasha Fyles with a crepe – was fined $3140 in November last year by the Agents Licensing Board after the woman accused her of telling her “she had her bum and t--s out and was a b---h”.

The board heard Jane Smith (not her real name) had rented a home through Ms Milgate in June 2021 under the National Rental Assistance Scheme.

The following month, Ms Milgate sent the mother a text message with screenshots of her OnlyFans posts, saying “Is this you? From our owners property?”, to which she replied: “Yes that is me, I do not understand why you are asking me that question”.

“This looks like the background from (the Johnston address)?” Ms Milgate responded.

“We have to serve you a notice to vacate (the) property immediately, we will be coming around with police.”

Ms Milgate then also threatened to notify Centrelink and “family affairs”, before Ms Smith claimed she called her and told her she was “a horrible person” who “had her bum and t--s out and was a b---h”, which Ms Milgate denied.

Suzi Milgate outside court where she will plead not guilty to assaulting Natasha Fyles at the Nightcliff markets. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

“We will be notifying NRAS today of your eligibility under the [NRAS], that you signed a stat dec that you will no longer fall under the income,” Ms Milgate later wrote in an email.

Ms Milgate told the board “she had ‘moral concerns’ about the welfare of a child and the use of the business for prostitution” and that Ms Smith had told her she was earning $1500 a week from the website, which she reported to the NRAS.

In handing down its decision, the board, while ruling Ms Milgate’s initial questions about the posts were “fair”, found she had no lawful grounds to evict Ms Smith or to involve the police and had “intended to harass and intimidate” her.

“The fact that Ms Milgate wrongly stated she had contacted the police when she had not and had contacted Centrelink and ‘family affairs’ when there was no lawful or other ground was also intended to threaten and intimidate the complainant,” the decision reads.

The board found that while authorities relied on agents to “update them on a tenant’s income”, “there were no grounds for her to make a report to the police, family affairs or NRAS”.

“It is noted that Ms Milgate did not believe that she owed the complainant an apology and that she is unable or unwilling to understand the extent of her unprofessional conduct,” the decision reads.

Darwin real estate agent loses licence after tenant ‘witch hunt’

A Darwin real estate agent charged with assaulting Natasha Fyles with a crepe has had her licence revoked after “conducting what looks like a witch hunt” against two of her tenants.

Suzi Milgate was also fined $10,000 following the disciplinary inquiry by the Agents Licensing Board that found her conduct towards Tamara Rolph and Lucas Fiddaman was “inexcusable”.

The board heard Ms Rolph and Mr Fiddaman had commenced a 12-month lease over a home in Bakewell in May last year, which was managed by Ms Milgate and her company.

After the tenants requested repairs following break-ins at the property, Ms Milgate emailed them to say “for everyone’s safety and concerns, it will be best to end the lease”.

When Mr Fiddaman replied to tell Ms Milgate they had no intention of vacating the property, Ms Rolph told the board “Ms Milgate contacted her and was extremely hostile and aggressive”.

In the phone call, she said Ms Milgate accused the tenants of “lying about the break‐ins” and was “extremely rude and combative”.

Suzi Milgate at Milgate Real Estate. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

It was then Ms Milgate began contacting the tenants’ employers, telling Ms Rolph’s boss “she was having ‘concerning issues’ and ‘great problems’ with (her), “without specifying what they were”.

“Ms Milgate informed the employer that there were holes in Ms Rolph’s story, and that she had talked to the neighbours and the whole community who have said that what Ms Rolph is saying is all lies, and there have been no break‐ins,” the board’s decision reads.

Just days later, Ms Rolph’s employer told her Ms Milgate had also contacted her boss’ manager at head office, to complain that Ms Rolph “had been lying about the attempted break‐ins and had been a problem for Ms Milgate”.

By the following month, the tenants had agreed to terminate the lease, and felt so “intimidated” by Ms Milgate that they were considering taking out a restraining order against her.

In her defence, Ms Milgate told the board the various conversations “only related to social media content” regarding break‐ins around Palmerston.

“She stated that she contacted the employers in the context of finding out if it was appropriate for ‘public servants’ to put negative content on social media (Facebook) relating to the landlord’s premises,” the decision reads.

Suzi Milgate. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

But the board found “Ms Milgate lied about the events with the intention of misleading the board” and there was “no real basis” for doubting the break-ins had occurred.

“While the repairs were actually made, the process followed by Ms Milgate led to the applicants terminating the tenancy and to them being bad‐mouthed and, potentially, defamed and undermined with their employers and others,” the board found.

“In conducting what looks like a witch hunt, Ms Milgate exercised, in relation to the applicants, little skill and almost no care.

“Additionally, her ‘diligence’ in investigating was unreasonable and misguided.”

The board also found that “in general terms, making life miserable” for tenants “is a breach of section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act”.

“The board also considers that Ms Milgate intentionally engaged in a course of conduct for the purposes of pressuring the applicants to vacate the premises, and that constitutes harassment for the purposes of (the Act),” the decision reads.

“(The breaches) are such that Ms Milgate in her personal capacity should not be in charge of a real estate agency. Her actions in respect of the applicants were inexcusable.”

Editor’s note: Ms Milagte has since lodged a stay application against the Agents Licencing Board of the Northern Territory with NTCAT in regards to its orders.