Justine Kelliher vs Colchester City Council

Tribunal dismisses appeal over property management redress scheme compliance

The First-tier Tribunal, General Regulatory Chamber, recently dismissed an appeal by Justine Kelliher against a financial penalty imposed by Colchester City Council. The penalty was issued for failing to comply with the Redress Schemes for Lettings Agency Work and Property Management Work (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc) (England) Order 2014, specifically articles 3 and 5, which mandate membership in an approved redress scheme.

The case was decided without a hearing, based on written representations from both parties. Judge Anthony Snelson presided over the matter, ultimately upholding the Council's decision to impose a £5,000 penalty on Kelliher for her non-compliance.

Background and statutory framework

The 2014 Order requires individuals involved in lettings agency or property management work to belong to a redress scheme approved or designated by the Secretary of State. Local councils are responsible for enforcing these requirements and can impose financial penalties of up to £5,000 for non-compliance.

In this case, the Council determined that Kelliher, trading as Athena Estates, was not a member of any approved redress scheme. Despite Kelliher's claims of ill health and non-engagement in property management activities, the evidence suggested otherwise.

Case details and findings

The Tribunal examined evidence that included internet searches and correspondence with the Property Redress Scheme, which confirmed that Athena Estates' membership had lapsed in May 2021. Despite claims of non-trading due to the owner's ill health, the Tribunal found no evidence to support these assertions.

The Council had issued a Notice of Intent to Kelliher in December 2023, followed by the final penalty notice in May 2024. The Tribunal found that Kelliher had continued to engage in property management activities, as evidenced by a management agreement with a property owner and the lack of any substitute management arrangements.

Appeal arguments and Tribunal's decision

Kelliher's appeal focused on two main arguments: that she was not engaged in property management at the relevant time due to ill health, and that the penalty should not have been applied to her personally. The Tribunal dismissed both arguments, citing a lack of evidence and the continued management of the property under the name Athena Estates.

The Tribunal concluded that the Council had acted correctly in imposing the penalty on Kelliher personally, as there was no evidence of any corporate entity managing the property. The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal affirming the Council's decision and the £5,000 penalty.

Learn More

For more information on housing law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.