N&A Investments UK Limited & Anor v Staffordshire County Council
[2024] UKFTT 984 (GRC)
The Right Property Company (Birmingham) Ltd v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
5 November 2024
[2024] UKFTT 983 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A letting agent was fined for not showing their fees online and for not having the right insurance to protect client's money. A judge lowered the fine because the agent fixed the problems and the original fine was too high.
Key Facts
- •The Right Property Company (Birmingham) Ltd (Appellant) is a letting agent that breached regulations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents Regulations 2019.
- •Breaches included failing to display fees on its website and at its premises, failing to publish details of CMP membership on its website and failing to ensure Zoopla published the correct information.
- •Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondent) issued Final Penalty Notices totaling £17,500.
- •The Appellant appealed against the penalties, arguing they were excessive and unintentional, and the business was facing financial hardship.
Legal Principles
Duty of letting agents to publicise fees etc.
Section 83, Consumer Rights Act 2015
Enforcement of letting agent duties and imposition of financial penalties.
Section 87, Consumer Rights Act 2015
Procedure for imposing financial penalties (Notice of Intent, Final Notice, review)
Schedule 9, Consumer Rights Act 2015
Requirement for property agents to belong to a client money protection scheme.
Regulation 3, Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents Regulations 2019
Grounds for appeal against financial penalties imposed on letting agents.
Schedule 9, paragraph 5, Consumer Rights Act 2015
Outcomes
Appeal allowed to a limited extent; penalties reduced.
The Tribunal considered the culpability and harm caused by the breaches, applying the Respondent's penalty matrix. While acknowledging the seriousness of the breaches, particularly the prolonged failure to belong to a CMP scheme, the Tribunal found that the original penalties were excessive given the mitigating factors (cooperation, lack of prior offenses, efforts to rectify the breaches), and the financial circumstances of the Appellant.