[2024] UKUT 287 (AAC)

Mr Lockley submitted that seriousness was a broad concept which did encompass the consequences of a contravention; the factors relevant to subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) in section 55A overlapped. He contended that the FTT had made relevant findings as to the seriousness of the contravention, when it explained why it upheld contraventions 3 and 9 at paragraph 110(g) – (n) of its decision and that it was clear from those findings that it considered that DSG had fallen significantly below the expected standard. He also reminded us that we must focus on the substance of the FTT’s reasoning, reading its decision as a whole, rather than considering paragraph 111 in isolation.

As regards the second alleged error, Mr Lockley contended that the expectations that were referred to were capable of being a relevant factor. He argued that the FTT did not require evidence on this point; it was a matter of commonsense and as a specialist tribunal it was fully entitled to take notice of this; the circumstances were very different to those in Scott which concerned a numerical matter on which specific evidence was required. Further or alternatively, he submitted that if this was an error on the part of the FTT, it was not a material error.