Environment Agency v Elizabeth Arden (UK) Ltd
[2023] UKUT 180 (AAC)
Elizabeth Arden (UK) Ltd v The Environment Agency
7 February 2024
[2024] UKFTT 112 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company was fined for not doing an energy audit. They said the fine notice wasn't properly delivered because the office was closed due to COVID and the email was sent to the wrong address. The judge agreed and cancelled the fine because the rules about sending notices weren't followed.
Key Facts
- •Elizabeth Arden (UK) Ltd (Appellant) appealed a penalty notice issued by the Environment Agency (Respondent) for non-compliance with the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) Regulations 2014.
- •The Appellant's registered office was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in non-receipt of initial notices.
- •Subsequent notices were sent to consumer email addresses, which were not designated for official communications.
- •The Penalty Notice was served via email to the Appellant's consultant.
- •The Appellant argued ineffective service and unreasonableness of the penalty.
Legal Principles
Service of notices must comply with the regulations.
ESOS Regulations 2014, Regulations 35, 38, 39, 51
Notices served by post require proof of posting.
Interpretation Act 1978, section 7
Email service must be to an address provided in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Regulations.
ESOS Regulations 2014, Regulation 51, Schedule 3
A penalty notice is wrong in law if not properly served.
ESOS Regulations 2014, Regulation 48(1)(b)
An appeal body can cancel a penalty notice if it was unreasonable.
ESOS Regulations 2014, Regulation 50(a)
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The penalty notice was not effectively served due to failure to comply with the service requirements in the Regulations. The email service was to an inappropriate address, and there was no evidence of proper postal service.
The penalty notice was cancelled.
The service was ineffective and the notice was wrong in law.
Similar Cases
Safeguard World International Holdings Limited v Environment Agency
[2024] UKFTT 34 (GRC)
Peter Devereux (t/a Deveroast) v The Pensions Regulator
[2024] UKFTT 882 (GRC)
Ali Shan v Nottingham City Council
[2024] UKFTT 780 (GRC)
Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Limited v The Pensions Regulator
[2024] UKFTT 91 (GRC)