Aristide Hoang-Brown defended a local authority in an appeal against its £5000 financial penalty on a property agency for breaching regulation 3 of The Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents Regulations 2019.
The company appealed the decision to the First-Tier Tribunal.
Aristide's arguments opposing the appeal
Aristide pointed out that although the property agency sought to challenge the decision to impose the financial penalty, it was not appealing the amount itself.
He highlighted that the property agency had operated without 'client money protection' membership for more than 2 years, despite being an established business that should have been aware of its legal obligations.
Aristide emphasised that during that time, the property agency continued to display an expired 'client money protection' certificate and logo which was misleading to customers who believed that proper protection was in place.
Furthermore, no sufficient evidence was provided to show that the property agency had stopped handling client money, nor that genuine financial hardship prevented it from complying.
Aristide submitted that:
- the property agency had been given ample opportunity to regularise its position
- the extended absence of the client money protection membership was a direct breach of regulation 3 of the scheme.
- the imposition of the financial penalty was justified, and
- the tribunal should dismiss the appeal.
Tribunal's decision
The tribunal found ‘no extenuating circumstances’ to reduce the penalty imposed, and that there was insufficient evidence that the penalty would put the business in financial difficulties.
The amount imposed was deemed as the right level to deter the company from future breaches and not complying with the legislation.
The appeal was dismissed and the financial penalty was confirmed.
Read the judgment in full in Ragdon Ltd v London Borough of Redbridge [2025] UKFTT 554 (GRC) (21 May 2025)