An estate agent in Dudley has lost a tribunal appeal and been ordered to pay £15,500 in fines after failing to comply with industry regulations.
Andrew Cole Estates, operated by Andrew Cole, was fined £14,000 for breaching client money protection (CMP) rules between January and August 2023, and a further £1,500 for failing to display required fee information on the agency’s website.
The First-tier Tribunal heard that Cole had been operating without valid CMP cover for nearly five years, after his RICS registration lapsed in May 2018. CMP schemes are mandatory for letting agents handling client funds, providing financial protection for landlords and tenants in the event of mismanagement or fraud.
Tribunal documents show Cole had stepped back from the business for 20 months, following the death of his father in September 2019 and while caring for his mother in France, who passed away in January 2023.
Cole argued that the compliance failures were due to mismanagement during his absence and claimed he believed he was covered under a Propertymark membership from November 2021. However, industry body confirmed his membership was individual, which does not include CMP cover.
The tribunal upheld the original penalties, stating that Cole remained legally responsible for meeting regulatory obligations during the period in question.
The tribunal stated: “The responsibility to ensure compliance was Mr Cole’s and, when due to personal circumstances, he was unable to ensure compliance, there was a duty on him to appoint someone else to do so.”
Cole told the tribunal he had sold the lettings arm of the business and was in the process of winding down operations, arguing the company could not afford the fines due to £34,000 in bounce-back loan debt, £4,000 in rent arrears, and other outstanding liabilities.
However, during a November 2023 inspection by Dudley Council’s trading standards, staff confirmed that Cole was still the owner, and no evidence of a sale was provided. The tribunal concluded that Cole had not made full financial disclosure.
Judge J Findlay ruled that the penalties were “substantially below the maximum”, noting that personal circumstances had been considered in reducing the fines. Both appeals were dismissed and the financial penalties upheld.
