Route Estates Limited v Enfield Council

Route Estates Limited v Enfield Council

The appellant breached statutory requirements by not displaying fees inclusive of VAT and not publishing correct CMPS information. The council followed proper procedure, considered representations, and the penalties imposed were reasonable and lawful. No evidence was provided to show the penalties were unaffordable or unreasonable.

Parties
Appellant: Route Estates Limited; Respondent: Enfield Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Letting Agent Regulation, Client Money Protection Scheme, Consumer Rights Act Compliance, Monetary Penalty Notices

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Route Estates Limited

Appellant

Enfield Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant breached section 83 of the Consumer Rights Act by not displaying fees inclusive of VAT
  2. 2 Whether the appellant breached the requirement to publish correct Client Money Protection Scheme information
  3. 3 Whether the monetary penalty notices were lawfully and reasonably imposed

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant breached statutory requirements by not displaying fees inclusive of VAT and not publishing correct CMPS information. The council followed proper procedure, considered representations, and the penalties imposed were reasonable and lawful. No evidence was provided to show the penalties were unaffordable or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • MPN1500 must be paid as originally notified and within 28 days of the decision.