The panel members were Mr Neville Pedersen MARLA (Honoured), FNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal); Mrs Janine Hytch FARLA, FNAEA, FNAVA (member panellist); and Mr Steven Shaw (lay panellist).
The presenting Case Officer for Propertymark was Ms Farrah Gibson. Mr Lyons was not in attendance at the hearing.
Allegations
The Tribunal considered the allegations set out in the case summary sent to Mr Lyons.
It was alleged that Mr Lyons had acted in contravention of the requirements of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules.
- Conduct Rule 13: General duty to uphold high standards of ethical and professional behaviour
- Conduct Rule 23: Continuing professional development (CPD) rules
Decisions
In the absence of Mr Lyons, Mr David Oliver, Propertymark Compliance Manager, entered a plea denying the alleged breaches of Rules 13 and 23. After consideration of the evidence presented and submissions by the parties, the Tribunal announced the following findings:
- Conduct Rule 13: Proven
- Conduct Rule 23: Proven
Sanctions
- Conduct Rule 13: £500
- Conduct Rule 23: £250
In addition, the costs of this hearing of £574.35 were imposed against Mr Lyons in favour of Propertymark.
Closing Statement
The Tribunal made the following statement:
'Compliance with all aspects of legislation relating to lettings is of paramount importance. Having continuous membership of a redress scheme is a legal requirement so as to protect the public, as is abiding by any sanctions imposed by said redress scheme. In having your membership terminated and reinstated on two occasions, delays in making payment of the penalty imposed, puts you in breach of Propertymark Rules'
The Appeal Panel members were Mr Richard Hair PPNAEA (Honoured) (Retd) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal); Ms Jacqueline Stone FNAEA (member panellist); and Mr Clive Wood (lay panellist).
The Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Ali Haider. Mr Lyons and his co-director, Mr James Hawley, attended the Appeal Hearing online via Zoom.
Original hearing findings and sanctions
Mr Lyons was found to have acted in breach of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules at the original hearing and the penalties imposed were:
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 13 | Proven | £500 |
| Rule 23 | Proven | £250 |
The sum of £574.35 was imposed on the member towards the costs of the hearing.
Appeal decision
After considering the evidence, Mr Lyons’s submission and after deliberation, the Appeal Tribunal made the following statement of findings:
'In respect of the breach of Rule 13, we find that proven, and in respect of Rule 23, we find that proven.
The sanctions in this case will be as follows;
In respect of the breach of Rule 13, we issue a Formal Warning.
In respect of Rule 23, we make a fine of £250.
In addition, there are costs of £491 for today’s hearing.
The Appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal has considered the mitigating factors and acknowledges the difficulties the member had in maintaining appropriate redress for clients. The fact remains that there was a period without necessary cover, hence, a breach of Rule 13, but with our appreciation of the difficulties, there is a reduction in the penalty made.
With regard to CPD, CPD is a requirement of all members, but the Appeal Panel is not aware that any CPD has been logged since the original finding'
Decision summary
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 13 | Proven | Formal |
| Rule 14 | Proven | £250 |
Additional costs of £491 for the Appeal Hearing were imposed on Mr Lyons in favour of Propertymark.
Download the full report
The downloadable report shows the full details of the rules involved in this case.