The Right Property Company (Birmingham) Ltd v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
[2024] UKFTT 983 (GRC)
KK Rich Estates Limited v London Borough of Newham
21 February 2024
[2024] UKFTT 149 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A letting agency was fined for not properly displaying information about fees on its website and in its office. The agency tried to argue technical problems and that they didn't know the rules, but the judge didn't believe them and upheld the fines. The judge emphasized that the law requires clear display of fees, not just their presence in the office somewhere.
Key Facts
- •KK Rich Estates Limited appealed three financial penalties (£3,000, £3,000, and £2,500) imposed by the London Borough of Newham for breaches of the Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents Regulations 2019 (CMPSR) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).
- •The breaches involved failure to display a Client Money Protection Certificate (CMPC) on their website, failure to display required information about landlord fees on their website and in their office.
- •The Appellant argued technical issues, lack of awareness, and the impact of the penalties on their business.
- •The Respondent argued that the Appellant, as a professional entity, should be aware of and comply with legal requirements, and that the penalties were proportionate.
Legal Principles
Regulation 4(c) of the CMPSR requires property agents to publish a copy of their CMPC on their website.
CMPSR
Section 83(2) of the CRA requires letting agents to display a list of fees at their premises where they deal face-to-face with clients, in a place likely to be seen.
CRA
Section 83(3), (6), and (7) of the CRA require letting agents to publish details of relevant fees, CMPS membership, and redress scheme membership on their website.
CRA
A letting agent's duty to publicise fees under section 83 of the CRA requires the fees to be displayed in a location where they are likely to be seen by clients, not simply present in the office.
CRA, Tribunal Interpretation
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Appellant was in breach of the CMPSR and CRA. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's arguments regarding technical issues and lack of awareness, finding the breaches clear and the penalties proportionate despite mitigating factors.
Similar Cases
Property Link (E17) Ltd v The London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2024] UKFTT 696 (GRC)
N&A Investments UK Limited & Anor v Staffordshire County Council
[2024] UKFTT 984 (GRC)
David Dawson v Nottingham City Council
[2023] UKFTT 851 (GRC)
The Borough Council of Gateshead v City Estate Holdings Limited
[2023] UKUT 35 (LC)