Case Reference: FT/SL/2024/0078
Standards & Licensing
Decided without a hearing on 12 May 2025
Before
JUDGE J FINDLAY
Between
JONATHAN FIRMIN
Appellant
and
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is Dismissed.
The Final Notice (FN) dated 12 August 2024 imposing a Financial Penalty (FP) of £500 for a breach of Regulation 4 of The Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc.) Regulations 2019 (CMPSR) is confirmed.
REASONS
I have determined this appeal (FT/SL/2024/0078 ) on the papers having considered rules 2 and 32 (a) and (b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.
The Respondent is the local authority charged with enforcement under the CMPSR and the Appellant, Mr Firmin, as Director of J Blain Firmin Ltd, trading as Blain Firmin, is the appropriate person to appeal and make representations on behalf of Blain Firmin.
I find that the Respondent issued a Notice of Intent on 10 May 2024 to J Blain Firmin Ltd indicating an intention to impose a FP of £2,000 for a failure to publish a client money protection scheme (CMPS) certificate on the website on 22 March 2024. The NI contained all the information as required under Regulation 10 and the Schedule to CMPSR. The cover letter dated 10 May 2024 was addressed to Mr Firmin as the Director.
I find the Respondent issued a FN dated 12 August 2024 to J Blain Firmin Ltd giving notice of a FP of £500 for the failure to comply with the duty to publish a valid CMPS certificate on the website on 22 March 2024. The FN contained all the information as required under Regulation 10 and the Schedule to CMPSR. The cover letter dated 12 August 2024 was addressed to Mr Firmin as the Director.
I find that J Blain Firmin Ltd, trading as Blain Firmin, was in breach of regulation 4 of the CMPSR on 22 March 2024. The CMPS certificate published on the website was not valid. This is accepted by the Appellant and not in issue. There were grounds to impose the FN.
The Appellant appeals on the following grounds:
Although the FP has been reduced it is still very high and prohibitive for a small independent business with staff to pay.
The CMPS certificate was not included on the website as it should have been. This was an oversight which is regretted.
This is a small high street business and is a large sum to factor into the limited resources.
The appellant asks that the FP be waived particularly as this is a first time breach or at least reduced to a more manageable reduced amount.
The breach will not be repeated.
Without prior warning for a small business how is the Appellant meant to run the firm financially on an even keel.
The punitive measure should be for larger organisations that need to get their ‘house in order’ or for those who obfuscate their responsibilities.
The Appellant started Blain Firmin in 1996 with integrity being a core value. He agrees with regulations to create credibility and he wants it to be at the forefront of creating customer confidence while showing transparency by displaying the CMPS certificate.
As soon as the Appellant realised the error which was due in part to the launch of a new website being delayed the website was taken down immediately. There will be no website until the new one is ready to be launched. He has ensured that this cannot happen again by arranging prompts from the website hosts to upload the relevant CMPS certificate as required.
The Appellant has run this small business for the best part of the last 30 years based wholly on ethical lines and will continue to do so in a professional manner.
I find that the FP was fair and proportionate in all the circumstances. In reaching this decision I have attached weight to the following factors which take into account all the points raised by the Appellant:
The maximum FP is £5,000 and the FP of £500 is substantially below this.
The FP is high enough to ensure a real economic impact on the Appellant and demonstrates the consequences of non-compliance with the legislative obligations.
There is no previous history of non-compliance.
The Appellant admitted the breach at an early opportunity and co-operated with the Respondent at all times.
The breach was a one-off incident which the Appellant acted on immediately as soon as he was made aware of the breach.
The Appellant is running a business and is expected to be aware of the legal obligations on him as the Director of the company.
The duty is on the Appellant as Director of the company to ensure compliance at all times with the legislative obligations.
The Appellant has put in place prompts to ensure there is no repetition., however, the level is appropriate to deter the Appellant from repeating the breach.
No tenant or landlord suffered any loss or harm.
This level of FP will deter others from committing similar breaches.
The Appellant has submitted that the level of FP is a large sum for the size of the business with staff to pay, that it is a large sum to factor into limited resources and that consideration should be given to a reduction to a manageable amount.
Ms Cosgrove, on behalf of the Respondent, in an email dated 16 May 2024 stated: “If you feel the penalty is too high for the business and you want the Council to consider the financial impact on the business, then you would need to submit evidence of this, such as accounts and bank statements.”
The Appellant has not filed any information about the financial circumstances of the company for my consideration despite being given the opportunity to do so. I have considered whether I should adjourn and direct the Appellant to file financial information and decided it is not proportionate to do so taking into account how long the appeal has been outstanding and that the Appellant has been given the opportunity to lodge evidence and has chosen not to do so.
On the basis of the evidence available I find that the FP will not have a financial impact on the business and the level of the FP is not disproportionate to the turnover and scale of the business or would lead to the Appellant going out of business.
Accordingly, I find there are no grounds to reduce the FP and the appeal is dismissed.
Signed Date: 12 May 2025
J Findlay