Mendip Property Management Limited v Bath & North East Somerset Council [2025] UKFTT 118 (GRC)
[8]Section 86 of the 2015 Act provides and further defines ‘letting agency work’: (1). In this Chapter “letting agency work” means things done by a person in the course of a business in response to instructions received from –(a) a person (“a prospective landlord”) seeking to find another person wishing to rent a dwelling-house under an assured tenancy and, having found such a person, to grant such a tenancy, or(b) a person (“a prospective tenant”) seeking to find a dwelling-house to rent under an assured tenancy and, having found such a dwelling-house, to obtain such a tenancy of it. (2). But “letting agency work” does not include any of the following things when done by a person who does nothing else within subsection (1) (a) publishing advertisements or disseminating information; (b) providing a means by which a prospective landlord or a prospective tenant can, in response to an advertisement or dissemination of information, make direct contact with a prospective tenant or a prospective landlord;(c) providing a means by which a prospective landlord and a prospective tenant can communicate directly with each other.[11](3)“Letting agency work” also does not include things done by a local authority. (1). In this Chapter “relevant fees”, in relation to a letting agent, means the fees, charges or penalties (however expressed) payable to the agent by a landlord or tenant –(a) in respect of letting agency work carried on by the agent,(b) in respect of property management work carried on by the agent, or (i) an assured tenancy of a dwelling-house, or (ii) a dwelling-house that is, has been or is proposed to be let under an assured tenancy. (2). Subsection (1) does not apply to – (a) the rent payable to a landlord under a tenancy, (b) any fees, charges or penalties which the letting agent receives from a landlord under a tenancy on behalf of another person,(c) a tenancy deposit within the meaning of section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004, or(d) any fees, charges or penalties of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority. (a). the decision to impose a financial penalty was based on an error of fact, (b). the decision was wrong in law, (c). the amount of the financial penalty is unreasonable, or (d). the decision was unreasonable for any other reason.[18][9] In the present case the final notice dated 08 March 2024, addressed to the appellant, confirmed a statement of reasons was contained in the Notice of Intent dated 22 January 2024 which outlined the reasons for the proposed penalty. In summary, the Appellant was informed that this was based on the following evidence:- “• You are a property agent to which The Regulations apply in that you engage inletting agency work and / or property management work etc.• Between 14 July 2022 and 04 January 2024 Mendip Property Management Ltd hasnot held membership of any government approved client money protection scheme,namely those operated by Client Money Protect, Money Shield, Propertymark,Safeagent, and UKALA Client Money Protection.• Between 14 July 2022 and 04 January 2024, we received emails from and hadtelephone conversations with the Company Director, Jason James VIRJEE, whichconfirmed Mendip Property Management Ltd did not have client money protectionscheme membership in place. This correspondence included assurances client money protection scheme membership would be obtained.You did not provide any representations following the service of the Notice of Intent and we consider that the original reasons contained in the notice remain relevant.The financial penalty imposed is determined by the Authority but must not exceed £30,000.The reasonable amount of the financial penalty for the above breach is £10,000.00.” The Appeal: (a). the decision to impose a financial penalty was based on an error of fact, (b). the decision was wrong in law, (c). the amount of the financial penalty is unreasonable, or (d). the decision was unreasonable for any other reason.[23]On consideration of the above evidence and representations the Tribunal finds that the grounds of appeal have not established any error of law or other defect, and the Appellant has failed to satisfy any of the grounds of appeal required to allow an appeal in this case. It all the circumstances it seems to the Tribunal that the Respondent has acted reasonably and within the Law. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.