[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Route Estates Ltd v Enfield Council [2025] UKFTT 511 (GRC) (09 May 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/511.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 511 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Standards and Licensing

		Considered without a hearing on 02 May 2025, decision finalised by the Judge on 07 May 2025
		Decision Given On: 09 May 2025

Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

References to pages in the bundle will be shown in square brackets, e.g. [A1]

Definitions:

"CMD"	Case Management Directions issued by the Tribunal
"CMPS"	Client Money Protection Scheme
"CRA"	the Consumer Rights Act 2005
"Enfield Council"	The London Borough of Enfield
"MPN"	Monetary Penalty Notice
"MPN1500"	Monetary Penalty Notice number WK/224019436
"MPN3000CRA"	Monetary Penalty Notice number WK/224021469
"MPN3000REG"	Monetary Penalty Notice number WK/224019422
"NOI"	Notice of Intent to impose an MPN
"Route Estates"	Routes Estates Limited, company number 15240397 incorporated on 27 October 2023
"The Regulations"	The Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc.) Regulations 2019
"UKALA"	the UK Association of Letting Agents

REASONS
1. By Final Notice dated 25 October 2024 [B47 and C68], Enfield Council issued MPN3000REG, in the amount of £3000 to Route Estates for breaching regulation 4 of the Regulations as they did not publish on their website a copy of their CMPS certificate.
2. By Final Notice dated 25 October 2024 [B46 and C74], Enfield Council issued MPN3000CRA, requiring Route Estates to pay a penalty of £3,000 for breaching their duty under section 83(3C) of the CRA as their website, on 14 June 2024, they did not have Zoopla display a list of their fees (or a link to a list of their fees) and that they did not publish the correct information about membership of a CMPS as (1) they stated they were members of ARLA Propertymark when they were not members of that CMPS and (2) they did not state that they were members of UKALA.
3. By Final, Notice dated 25 October 2024 [C76], Enfield Council issued MPN1500 requiring Route Estates to pay a penalty of £1,500 for breaching their duty under section 83(3) of the CRA because they displayed their fees as "+VAT" when the legislation (section 83(4)(c)) requires fees to be displayed including VAT.
4. In total, therefore, Enfield Council, required payment of £7,500 from Route Estates.
5. The following chronology sets out the background leading to the issue of the MPNs:

07 March 2024	Enfield Council inspected Route Estates' website and, as a result, wrote to various CMPS
14 June 2024	Enfield Council re-inspected Route Estates' website
21 June 2024	Enfield Council issued 3 NOI
25 and 27 June 2024	Representations made/received from Route Estates
04 and 17 October 2024	Correspondence between Route Estates and Enfield Council
25 October 2024	MPN3000CRA is issued by Enfield Council
25 October 2024	MPN3000REG is issued by Enfield Council
25 October 2024	MPN1500 is issued by Enfield Council

6. The following chronology sets out the procedural steps taken in this appeal:

28 October 2024	GRC1 completed by Route Estates stating they appeal against WK/224019463 [B15 to B27]
31 October 2024	GRC1 completed by Route Estates by Route Estates stating they appeal against WK/224021469 [B28 to B40]
November 2024	2 cases opened – FT/SL/2024/0084 for MPN3000CRA and FT/SL/2024/0085 for MPN1500
19 November 2024	Initial CMD issued (from [A3])
21 November 2024	GRC Case Management Questionnaire by Route Estates [B41 to B44]
12 December 2024	GRC Case Management Questionnaire by Enfield Council [C52 to C55]
12 December 2024	Enfield Council's Response to the appeals [C56 to C63]
17 February 2025	Certificate of Compliance by Route Estate
17 February 2025	Further CMD issued
17 March 2025	Certificate of Compliance by Enfield Council

7. It appears that at no point did the Tribunal consolidate these appeals (i.e. make them one appeal). However, CMD dated 17 February 2025 dealt with both appeals together and it appears that Enfield Council treated these as one appeal. The bundle I received named both appeals, albeit that I was sent 2 copies – one saved under the Tribunal's folder for 0084 and one for the Tribunal's folder 0085.
8. As can also be seen ([B18] and [B31]), Route Estates quoted MPN numbers which indicated appeals against MPN3000CRA and MPN1500. Route Estates sent with their GRC1 forms copies of MPN3000REG and MPN1500, but did not send a copy of MPN3000CRA.
9. I note that in their Certificate of Compliance, Route Estates said that the case was not ready for decision [B48] and yet also stated "I believe all details have been given".
10. The MPNs are separate entities, I have decided to issue a decision in respect of each of MPN1500 and MPN3000CRA so that if there is onward challenge, it is clear which MPN is under challenge. I recognise that there is overlap between the decisions, but that is necessary.
11. There will be no decision in respect of MPN3000REG as no GRC1 was lodged to challenge that MPN.

The Grounds of Appeal

12. Route Estate's Grounds of Appeal [B22], against MPN1500 are:

a. It was an unfortunate, innocent and genuine mistake that they displayed fees as "plus VAT", rather than inclusive of VAT as required by the legislation.

b. They made the change within 1 hour of being notified of the mistake.

c. It is unfair for there to be an MPN, it would be fairer if trading standards was required to notify them of the mistake and then give 30 days to rectify a mistake and no penalty to be issued.

d. It is a new company (trading for 10 months at the time of the GRC1) in an area in which the Company Owner is not familiar; they have made no current profits.

e. £1,500 is unaffordable.

13. Route Estate asked that both fines were "removed" as they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Enfield Council's Response

14. Enfield Council's response [C56 to C64] picks up on the issues I set out above with 3 MPNs having been issued, but 2 GRC1 Forms lodged, indicating appeals against only 2 of the MPNs. The response then submits:

a. Route Estates has admitted the breaches, Enfield Council was entitled to issue each MPN.

b. Route Estates, as a professional entity, is expected to be aware of and comply with all requirements imposed by law, including these which have been in force since May 2015 and June 2019 for the matters regarding the CRA and April 2019 for the Regulations. It is not for Enfield Council to issue advice or warnings.

c. Route Estates has provided no evidence to indicate that the financial penalties will have a serious detrimental effect on them.

d. The amounts follow the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government Guidelines and follow First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal decisions.

e. Enfield Council took into account the fact that they had attempted to comply with the requirement to declare membership of a CMPS, but they had stated the wrong one. Enfield Council took account of the quick response by Route Estates when they were informed of the breach by NOI.

f. Enfield Council took account of Route Estates' attempts to remedy the breaches on Zoopla but also had to take account of the mistakes made, namely uploading fee information which did not include VAT and uploading the wrong information about CMPS.

Evidence

15. The CMD on 17 February 2025 required parties to send to each other and the Tribunal any witness evidence on which they rely. Enfield Council rely on witness statements from Alexandra Cosgrove and Esther Hughes. Route Estates does not rely on witness evidence as confirmed in their Case Management Questionnaire (see answer at part 2.4 on [B42]).
16. Ms Cosgrove's statement and its exhibits are found at [C78] to [C86]. Her evidence is that:

a. On 07 March 2024 she checked Route Estates' website and found they were displaying logos for more than one CMPS. On re-checking the website on 14 June 2024, she found the same breach.

b. On 14 June 2024, she checked Route Estates' microsite on Zoopla and found they were displaying logos for 3 separate CMPSs, so asked the administrators of the CMPSs whether Route Estates was a member or had been a member of the schemes whose logos they were displaying.

c. She was told by each of the schemes that Route Estates was not and had never been a member; in such circumstances, Route Estates had no right to use those logos.

d. Route Estates were also displaying a logo indicating membership of UKALA. Once the name under which Route Estates was registered was established (they had not published a copy of their certificate), UKALA confirmed they were registered with their CMPS.

e. On 20 June 2024, she carried out a screen recording for Route Estates' own website and for Zoopla each of which I have watched and listened to (albeit that the recordings are not particularly clear). Those recordings showed breaches of:

i. regulation 4 of the Regulations as they had not published their certificate from their CMPS provider on their website.

ii. section 83(3) of the CRA as they had not published their fees inclusive of VAT.

iii. section 83(3C) of the CRA as they had not published their fees on Zoopla and failed to state on Zoopla that they were members of UKALA.

f. On 21 June 2024, she issued, under a covering letter, 3 NOIs warning them about these and other breaches she had found (see paragraph 15 of her statement [C81]). She received representations in shortly after the NOIs were issued but in October 2024 noted that there were still errors made on the Zoopla microsite.

g. Alongside Ms Hughes, she decided to issue the 3 MPNs which are set out above and sent out MPN3000REG, MPN3000CRA and MPN1500.

17. Ms Hughes' statement is found at [C251] to [C256] and confirms both Ms Cosgrove's statement and the position taken by Enfield Council in Route Estates' appeal.
18. The Court has considered the contents of a 393-page PDF bundle, page number [A1] t0 [D391] and 2 recorded exhibits.

Law

19. The Duty of Letting agents to publicise fees inclusive of VAT is found in section 83 of the CRA.
20. I do not set out the legislation within this decision^[1].
21. The Tribunal will give appropriate weight to Enfield Council's decision as they are the legal person tasked by Parliament with deciding whether and MPN should be issued when they find a breach of section 83 of the CRA^[2]. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that Enfield Council's decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

Consideration

22. Route Estates consented to consideration without a hearing [B23, B36 and B42] as did Enfield Council [C53 and C56].
23. I have carefully considered whether, pursuant to rule 32(1)(b) of the GRC Rules, I can properly determine the issues without a hearing. The only cause for concern I had is whether a hearing was needed to clarify which MPNs were appealed against. However, the GRC1 forms, including where the MPN number quoted and grounds of appeal clearly refer to Zoopla and £3,000 with the other GRC1 form clearly referring to an MPN number and grounds of appeal about +VAT and £1,500 appear to me to be clear that the MPNs against which appeal is made are those quoted by Route Estates, namely MPN3000CRA and MPN1500. Further, the key facts are not in dispute, namely that Route Estates did not display their fees inclusive of VAT (MPN1500) and that Route Estates were not displaying their fees on Zoopla at the time of Enfield Council's checks (MPN3000CRA). Therefore, I consider that I can properly determined the issues in the appeals against MPN3000CRA and MPN1500 without requiring parties to attend a hearing.
24. Considering the issues concerning MPN1500:

a. The permitted grounds of appeal are found in CRA Schedule 9, paragraph 5(2)^[3] and are:

i. The decision to impose a penalty was based on an error of fact.

ii. The decision was wrong in law.

iii. The amount is unreasonable.

iv. The decision was unreasonable for any other reason.

b. Route Estates does not appear to allege any error of fact. They do not appear to assert that the decision to impose MPN1500 was wrong in law. It appears that they appeal using the statutory grounds of the imposition was unreasonable and the amount is unreasonable.

c. I do not find that the decision to impose a penalty was wrong in law. Enfield Council properly followed the requirement to issue an NOI once a breach was found and invited representations. They took account of the representations made as can be seen by the reduction in the amount of the MPN compared to the amount being contemplated in the NOI.

d. I do not find that the decision to impose a penalty was unreasonable. The statutory scheme does not require Enfield Council to find breaches and give an opportunity for a letting agent to rectify a breach. It may be that in some circumstances, that is an appropriate approach (thus making the issue of an MPN unreasonable) but that was not the situation here. Route Estates' breaches were extensive and appeared to display either a lack of knowledge of the regulatory regime or a positive decision not to follow the relevant statutory requirements. I note that they say they have been trading for 10 months, but I also note that their website (as seen in the video capture) claims 15 years' knowledge of this work that is an interesting discrepancy, but not one with which I need to be concerned so far as this appeal is concerned.

e. Whilst there was rectification, it only occurred as a consequence of Enfield Council's investigation.

f. There is still no information from Route Estates as to their finances. Without such evidence, that Tribunal cannot reasonably find that the amount is unreasonable.

g. For the above reasons, I find that Enfield Council had the legal right to issue MPN1500, that it was not unreasonable to issue that Notice and that the amount was reasonable.

Conclusion

25. The appeal is dismissed, MPN1500 must be paid as originally notified and within 28 days of the date this decision is sent to parties.

Signed Judge Worth

Date: 07 May 2025

Note 1   This: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/83 is a link to the legislation    [Back]

Note 2   See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31, see https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html; approved by the Supreme Court I Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 at paragraph 45, see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf     [Back]

Note 3   See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/9     [Back]