The panel members were Mr Jim Atkins PPNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal), Mr Richard Copus CPEA FNAEA (Honoured) FNAVA (member panellist) and Mr Steven Shaw (lay panellist).
The presenting Case Officer for Propertymark was Miss Laura Hanley-Gorton. Mr Harrison did not take part in the hearing, Mr Van der Schyff was present. Mr Bruce Evans (Managing Director of Group Operations) and Ms Amber Brackley (Head of Customer Experience) both represented Townends and spoke on behalf of Mr Harrison and Mr Van Der Schyff.
Allegations
The Tribunal considered the allegations set out in the case summary sent to Mr Harrison and Mr Schyff on 5 January 2021. It was alleged that Mr Harrison and Mr Van der Schyff had acted in contravention of the requirements of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules and TPO Code of Practice.
TPO Code of Practice for Residential Letting Agents (effective from June 2019)
1. General Obligations
1(b) You must comply with this Code of Practice. You must comply with all Laws (as amended, re-enacted or substituted with or without modifications from time to time) relating to the letting and management of residential property and in particular to the General Data Protection Regulation (or any successor legislation), the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, Energy Act 2011 (Green Deal), Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Housing Act 1988, 2004, Competition Act 1998, Immigration Act 2014, Consumer Rights Act 2015, De-Regulation Act 2015, Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, Tenant Fees Act 2019 and all other current and relevant primary and secondary legislation and any local licensing obligations.
1(c) You must ensure that all staff are fully conversant with all aspects of the Code of Practice and their legal responsibilities. Such staff must observe the code and their legal responsibilities in all their dealings with consumers. Staff must have a good working knowledge of relevant lettings and property management related legislation and the law of contract.
Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules
- Conduct rule 13: General duty to uphold high standards of ethical and professional behaviour
- Conduct rule 21: Continuing professional development (CPD) rules
Decision
The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by the Case Officer and the submissions from Mr Gibbs and Mr Davis before reaching their findings.
- Code of Practice 1b:
- Mr Harrison — Proven
- Mr Van der Schyff — Proven
- Code of Practice 1b:
- Mr Harrison — Proven
- Mr Van der Schyff — Proven
- Conduct rule 13.1.2:
- Mr Harrison — Proven
- Mr Van der Schyff — Proven
- Cnduct rule 21:
- Mr Harrison — Admitted
- Mr Van der Schyff — Admitted
Mr Evans speaking on behalf of Mr Harrison and Mr Van der Schyff declined the opportunity to enter a plea in mitigation.
Sanctions
- Code of Practice 1b:
- Mr Harrison — £2,250
- Mr Van der Schyff — £2,250
- Code of Practice 1b:
- Mr Harrison — £2,250
- Mr Van der Schyff — £2,250
- Conduct rule 13.1.2:
- Mr Harrison — £3,000
- Mr Van der Schyff — £3,000
- Cnduct rule 21:
- Mr Harrison — £500
- Mr Van der Schyff — £500
In addition, costs were imposed of £128.50 each against Mr Harrison & Mr Van Der Schyff in favour of Propertymark.
Closing statement
The Tribunal made the following statement:
'By the lack of action on receipt of information by Townends, the potential risk of harm to tenants cannot be underestimated. Due to the failings of Townends staff, your tenants were left exposed to potential serious injury. Having received notification in early August, it was only in October 2019 upon receipt of a letter from Guildford Borough Council that appropriate action was taken to further investigate and remedy the 15 confirmed faults which are categorised as “C2 potentially dangerous/urgent action required”.
The Tribunal considers that earlier action should have been taken by Townends and we recommend that Townends procedures should be reviewed and that all staff are required to comply.'
The Appeal Panel members were Mr Neville Pedersen MARLA (Honoured), FNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal), Miss Jacqueline Stone FNAEA (member panellist) and Ms Gillian Fleming (lay panellist).
The Case Officer for Propertymark was Miss Laura Hanley-Gorton. Mr Harrison did not take part in the hearing, Mr Van Der Schyff was present. Mr Bruce Evans (Managing Director of Group Operations) and Ms Amber Brackley (Head of Customer Experience) both represented Townends and spoke on behalf of Mr Harrison and Mr Van der Schyff.
Original hearing findings and sanctions
Mr Harrison and Mr Van Der Schyff were found to have acted in breach of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules at the hearing held on 26 January 2021 and the penalties imposed on them were:
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Code of Practice 1b | Proven | £2,250 each |
| Code of Practice 1c | Proven | £2,250 each |
| Rule 13.1.2 | Proven | £3,000 each |
| Rule 21 | Proven | £500 each |
The sum of £128.50 each was imposed on the members towards the costs of the hearing.
Appeal decision
After considering the evidence and after deliberation, the Appeal Tribunal made the following statement of findings:
'In respect of the breach of Code 1b, the appeal is rejected.
The email of 2 August 2019 to the owner of Townends made clear the serious concerns as to electrical safety and sufficient action/steps were not taken leaving the tenants and other residents in the block at potential risk. The penalty issued is therefore confirmed.
In respect of the breach of Code 1c, the appeal is rejected, however the penalty of £2,250 for each individual is reduced to £500 given the additional evidence presented to the Appeal in relation to the training provided by the company and training records for the member of staff.
In the breach of 13.1.2, the appeal is rejected.
The Tribunal notes that the breach proven is in respect of this point only and not the whole of Rule 13. Given the additional information and representation to the Appeal Hearing the penalties are reduced to £1,500 per individual
In respect of Rule 21 the findings and penalties per the original hearing stand as presented since these were not appealed.
There are on top of this the costs of today’s hearing of £200.50.'
Decision summary
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Code of Practice 1b | Proven | £2,250 each |
| Code of Practice 1c | Proven | £500 each |
| Rule 13.1.2 | Proven | £1,500 each |
| Rule 21 | Proven | £500 each |
Download the full report
The downloadable report shows the full details of the rules involved in this case.
