Estate agency

Citation

Waterson, G. and Lee, R. (2001), "Estate agency", Property Management, Vol. 19 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2001.11319bab.002

Estate agency

Estate agency

R v. Docklands Estates Ltd (2000)The Times 22 September, 45 EG 175

The appellant estate agency had been convicted in Southwark Crown Court of three offences of giving a false indication that services were supplied contrary to S13 Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

The offences consisted of "fly boarding", that is erecting "sold" signs outside properties for which it had received no instructions and had provided no services. Fines totalling £22,500 were imposed by the Crown Court. The appellant appealed against the level of fines imposed.

The Court of Appeal felt that the activity of "fly boarding" must be controlled as it is a significant nuisance and unsightly. More importantly, however, it could mislead the public as it implied that the business had successfully sold the properties. Thus the public would feel that they could have confidence in the company when in fact it was carrying on business dishonestly. Furthermore, honest businesses were put at a disadvantage by such activity.

The court found that fines of £100 for each offence were typically awarded by magistrates courts and that it would be difficult to find any case in which a penalty in excess of £3,000 had been awarded. This level of fines, the court felt, was "wholly inappropriate for what is a commercial crime". To be effective the fines must be realistic. In the present case where the matter had been contested, the Court of Appeal held that the appropriate fine was £2,000 for each offence.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part and the fines were reduced to £2,000 per offence. However, their Lordships expressed a hope that the magistrates would recognise that the penalties they were awarding for such offences were too low and should be increased to the extent indicated.