Marshell Oil LLP v Environment Agency
[2023] UKFTT 948 (GRC)
Learndirect Limited v Environment Agency
22 June 2023
[2023] UKFTT 561 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company was fined for not doing an energy audit. The government made a mistake in the first fine, so they issued a new one. A judge said the second fine was too high and reduced it.
Key Facts
- •Learndirect Limited appealed against a £22,950 civil penalty imposed by the Environment Agency (EA) for failing to comply with the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) Regulations 2014.
- •The initial penalty notice (NCP1) contained an error, leading the EA to withdraw it and issue a revised notice (NCP2).
- •The appeal was initially against NCP1, but was converted to an appeal against NCP2.
- •Learndirect argued it could not comply with the Enforcement Notice because it had sold its subsidiary company before the notice was served.
- •The EA maintained Learndirect was responsible for the non-compliance at the relevant time.
- •The EA's Enforcement and Sanctions Policy guided the penalty decision.
Legal Principles
An appeal against a penalty notice can be made on the grounds that the notice was based on an error of fact, wrong in law, or unreasonable.
Regulation 48(1) of the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme Regulations 2014
The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to considering appeals against issued notices and determining whether the grounds of appeal are made out. It has no power to prevent the Respondent issuing a new notice following withdrawal of an earlier one.
Regulation 48(1) and implied from the Tribunal's reasoning
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed in part.
The Tribunal found that while the EA was entitled to withdraw NCP1 and issue NCP2, the penalty of £22,950 was excessive given the low culpability of Learndirect and the mitigating circumstances.
The civil penalty was reduced to £4,500.
The Tribunal determined that the appropriate level of culpability was low, and the EA's application of its own policy led to an unreasonably high penalty.