A Dudley-based estate agent has lost his tribunal appeal and has been hit with fines totalling £15,500.

Andrew Cole, trading as Andrew Cole Estates, was fined £14,000 for breaching client money protection regulations between January and August 2023, and a further £1,500 for failing to publish required fee information on his website in January 2023.

The First-tier Tribunal heard that Cole had operated without a valid client money protection scheme membership for almost five years at the time of the penalties, with his RICS registration having lapsed in May 2018.

Family bereavements

Court records show Cole stepped away from the business for 20 months following his father’s death in September 2019 and his mother’s passing in January 2023, during which time he cared for his mother in France.

Cole argued that the breaches resulted from mismanagement during that period, claiming he believed he had client money protection through Propertymark membership from November 2021. However, Propertymark confirmed he only held an individual membership, which does not include client money protection cover.

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.”

The tribunal found Cole had ample opportunity to ensure compliance, noting: “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 claimed he had sold the lettings side of the business and was winding up operations, stating the business could not afford the fines due to £34,000 in bounce-back loans, rent arrears of £4,000 and other debts.

However, when Dudley Council’s trading standards officer visited the premises in November 2023, staff confirmed Cole remained the owner with no evidence of any sale. The tribunal therefore found Cole had not provided full financial disclosure.

Judge J Findlay ruled the penalties were “substantially below the maximum” and took personal difficulties into account in reducing the fines. The appeals were dismissed and both financial penalties confirmed.