Kitchen fan faux pas fine and "proceeds of crime"
Discussion
A council has taken a restaurant to task over an unapproved extractor fan was installed after nearby residents complaints about there not being one.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/meze-mang...
https://metro.co.uk/2025/10/09/dads-ordered-pay-2-...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15171585/...
The cash-strapped council is using Proceeds of Crime legislation to rinse folk where they can to fill their coffers, in this case the restaurant owners for £2,500,000.00.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/meze-mang...
https://metro.co.uk/2025/10/09/dads-ordered-pay-2-...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15171585/...
The cash-strapped council is using Proceeds of Crime legislation to rinse folk where they can to fill their coffers, in this case the restaurant owners for £2,500,000.00.
Another tiny bit of proof that they are actively after as much money as possible.
Rather than actually administer their responsibilities and act like a council should its all about winkling money out people and using any means possible, fair or foul.
When does this end ? When does it all come to a head ? Because it has to, the public wont put up with this much more. Especially as its involving more and more people and those that are not affected are noticing it now.
Rather than actually administer their responsibilities and act like a council should its all about winkling money out people and using any means possible, fair or foul.
When does this end ? When does it all come to a head ? Because it has to, the public wont put up with this much more. Especially as its involving more and more people and those that are not affected are noticing it now.
"In 2014 they installed a large extractor fan and adjoining platform so that it can be accessed for servicing following a complaint from a neighbour about cooking smells wafting into their home.
They applied for retrospective planning permission, but it was refused and an appeal was dismissed, prompting the council to begin legal action in 2019."
Meh.
They applied for retrospective planning permission, but it was refused and an appeal was dismissed, prompting the council to begin legal action in 2019."
Meh.
My thoughts without much basis in law revolves around the sauce for goose and gander concept. If a council wants to go down this route then council officials would become personally and criminally liable for their mistakes and decisions in office when they have clearly screwed up or failed to act properly when required.
Soon have their houses off them.
Soon have their houses off them.
The restaurant owners had planning permission rejected eight years previously and failed to act. As stated in the Standard report, the level of fine is one not set by them. It's one the court decided on. Had they, or their brief, attended court, they could have put evidence before it and, possibly, the award would have been somewhat less.
It’s normal procedure for councils, whether or not they are cash-strapped. It’s at least a tiny bit of proof the council is acting to enforce the regs. The council hasn’t rushed into this in a money-grabbing move, but given the owners sufficient chance of conforming. It would appear they failed to take advantage of the opportunity, leaving the council with the choice of ignoring the regulations – many are for safety one way or the other – or use the courts.
The main reason retrospective planning permission is refused is because they fail to conform to building regs. I can’t say whether this is the case here, but it seems likely given the report. Councils tend to use courts as a last resort as they can be expensive and they often don’t get damages unless negotiation opportunities are either exhausted or the other side fail to change the disputed item.
I think it unlikely there will be a mass of people with extractor fans not conforming to the regs taking to the streets as they don’t want to ‘put up with this much more’.
From the report, at lest the one in the Standard, it would appear the council were patient. This might be because courts would criticise if they went in before all other opportunities were tried and failed.
It’s normal procedure for councils, whether or not they are cash-strapped. It’s at least a tiny bit of proof the council is acting to enforce the regs. The council hasn’t rushed into this in a money-grabbing move, but given the owners sufficient chance of conforming. It would appear they failed to take advantage of the opportunity, leaving the council with the choice of ignoring the regulations – many are for safety one way or the other – or use the courts.
The main reason retrospective planning permission is refused is because they fail to conform to building regs. I can’t say whether this is the case here, but it seems likely given the report. Councils tend to use courts as a last resort as they can be expensive and they often don’t get damages unless negotiation opportunities are either exhausted or the other side fail to change the disputed item.
I think it unlikely there will be a mass of people with extractor fans not conforming to the regs taking to the streets as they don’t want to ‘put up with this much more’.
From the report, at lest the one in the Standard, it would appear the council were patient. This might be because courts would criticise if they went in before all other opportunities were tried and failed.
Not sure it has to be mutually exclusive and one is right and one is wrong does it?
The council might be being over-zealous if they're actually going for that amount but you let one get away with it and others will try it on too.
The owners would also appear to have had every opportunity imaginable to resolve the situation amicably at a much lower cost but haven't done so.
The council might be being over-zealous if they're actually going for that amount but you let one get away with it and others will try it on too.
The owners would also appear to have had every opportunity imaginable to resolve the situation amicably at a much lower cost but haven't done so.
Does the Proceeds of Crime Act really apply in this case https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7...
Unless there are a number of facts missing it seems unlikely. Fairly sure it wasn’t designed for breaches of planning law.
Unless there are a number of facts missing it seems unlikely. Fairly sure it wasn’t designed for breaches of planning law.
Derek Smith said:
The restaurant owners had planning permission rejected eight years previously and failed to act. As stated in the Standard report, the level of fine is one not set by them. It's one the court decided on. Had they, or their brief, attended court, they could have put evidence before it and, possibly, the award would have been somewhat less.
It s normal procedure for councils, whether or not they are cash-strapped. It s at least a tiny bit of proof the council is acting to enforce the regs. The council hasn t rushed into this in a money-grabbing move, but given the owners sufficient chance of conforming. It would appear they failed to take advantage of the opportunity, leaving the council with the choice of ignoring the regulations many are for safety one way or the other or use the courts.
The main reason retrospective planning permission is refused is because they fail to conform to building regs. I can t say whether this is the case here, but it seems likely given the report. Councils tend to use courts as a last resort as they can be expensive and they often don t get damages unless negotiation opportunities are either exhausted or the other side fail to change the disputed item.
I think it unlikely there will be a mass of people with extractor fans not conforming to the regs taking to the streets as they don t want to put up with this much more .
From the report, at lest the one in the Standard, it would appear the council were patient. This might be because courts would criticise if they went in before all other opportunities were tried and failed.
Yup. It appears as if the owners had just been refusing to interact and the council were left with no other options. It s normal procedure for councils, whether or not they are cash-strapped. It s at least a tiny bit of proof the council is acting to enforce the regs. The council hasn t rushed into this in a money-grabbing move, but given the owners sufficient chance of conforming. It would appear they failed to take advantage of the opportunity, leaving the council with the choice of ignoring the regulations many are for safety one way or the other or use the courts.
The main reason retrospective planning permission is refused is because they fail to conform to building regs. I can t say whether this is the case here, but it seems likely given the report. Councils tend to use courts as a last resort as they can be expensive and they often don t get damages unless negotiation opportunities are either exhausted or the other side fail to change the disputed item.
I think it unlikely there will be a mass of people with extractor fans not conforming to the regs taking to the streets as they don t want to put up with this much more .
From the report, at lest the one in the Standard, it would appear the council were patient. This might be because courts would criticise if they went in before all other opportunities were tried and failed.
Derek Smith said:
The restaurant owners had planning permission rejected eight years previously and failed to act. As stated in the Standard report, the level of fine is one not set by them. It's one the court decided on. Had they, or their brief, attended court, they could have put evidence before it and, possibly, the award would have been somewhat less.
It s normal procedure for councils, whether or not they are cash-strapped. It s at least a tiny bit of proof the council is acting to enforce the regs. The council hasn t rushed into this in a money-grabbing move, but given the owners sufficient chance of conforming. It would appear they failed to take advantage of the opportunity, leaving the council with the choice of ignoring the regulations many are for safety one way or the other or use the courts.
The main reason retrospective planning permission is refused is because they fail to conform to building regs. I can t say whether this is the case here, but it seems likely given the report. Councils tend to use courts as a last resort as they can be expensive and they often don t get damages unless negotiation opportunities are either exhausted or the other side fail to change the disputed item.
I think it unlikely there will be a mass of people with extractor fans not conforming to the regs taking to the streets as they don t want to put up with this much more .
From the report, at lest the one in the Standard, it would appear the council were patient. This might be because courts would criticise if they went in before all other opportunities were tried and failed.
I think the council probably did the right thing. But the fine is utterly insane. The end result will most likely be the restaurant closes, the business goes bankrupt (so no £2.5m will be received) and the workers will lose their jobs.It s normal procedure for councils, whether or not they are cash-strapped. It s at least a tiny bit of proof the council is acting to enforce the regs. The council hasn t rushed into this in a money-grabbing move, but given the owners sufficient chance of conforming. It would appear they failed to take advantage of the opportunity, leaving the council with the choice of ignoring the regulations many are for safety one way or the other or use the courts.
The main reason retrospective planning permission is refused is because they fail to conform to building regs. I can t say whether this is the case here, but it seems likely given the report. Councils tend to use courts as a last resort as they can be expensive and they often don t get damages unless negotiation opportunities are either exhausted or the other side fail to change the disputed item.
I think it unlikely there will be a mass of people with extractor fans not conforming to the regs taking to the streets as they don t want to put up with this much more .
From the report, at lest the one in the Standard, it would appear the council were patient. This might be because courts would criticise if they went in before all other opportunities were tried and failed.
Who wins?
ukwill said:
I think the council probably did the right thing. But the fine is utterly insane. The end result will most likely be the restaurant closes, the business goes bankrupt (so no £2.5m will be received) and the workers will lose their jobs.
Who wins?
And the brother of the planning office buys a property on the cheap!Who wins?
ukwill said:
I think the council probably did the right thing. But the fine is utterly insane. The end result will most likely be the restaurant closes, the business goes bankrupt (so no £2.5m will be received) and the workers will lose their jobs.
Who wins?
I'm guessing the fine is just formulaic? Business revenue of each year for the infraction?Who wins?
I suspect the brothers are starting to wish they'd not made the life choice to ignore the council and telling them to go f
k themselves and that they were above the law?Invariably there will be much more to the story and the three articles linked to above are simply rehashes of an article published by something called The Last Retort so may be worth establishing who they are?
119 said:
I think the P.O.C. is authorised for use against those that are benefitting from criminal activity, which using the extractor without planning, is.
Or something like that?
That’s the argument and in my view it’s not what the POCA was designed for. The Act was designed for terrorists, drug dealing etc.Or something like that?
There are other ways of challenging breaches of planning law.
Chrisgr31 said:
That s the argument and in my view it s not what the POCA was designed for. The Act was designed for terrorists, drug dealing etc.
There are other ways of challenging breaches of planning law.
Yup but it looks like they'd exhausted every other path over the last 7 years?There are other ways of challenging breaches of planning law.
One assumes it will be appealed and that this may be the actual end game as it forces the brothers to engage with the authorities.
DonkeyApple said:
Yup but it looks like they'd exhausted every other path over the last 7 years?
One assumes it will be appealed and that this may be the actual end game as it forces the brothers to engage with the authorities.
Laws like POCA weren't put into statute to go after people not putting in forms to put up aircon units on their kebab shops!One assumes it will be appealed and that this may be the actual end game as it forces the brothers to engage with the authorities.
This is nuts. It will now be used for a whole host of other minor infractions - entirely making the point of those who say be careful about the remit of any legislation created.
ukwill said:
DonkeyApple said:
Yup but it looks like they'd exhausted every other path over the last 7 years?
One assumes it will be appealed and that this may be the actual end game as it forces the brothers to engage with the authorities.
Laws like POCA weren't put into statute to go after people not putting in forms to put up aircon units on their kebab shops!One assumes it will be appealed and that this may be the actual end game as it forces the brothers to engage with the authorities.
This is nuts. It will now be used for a whole host of other minor infractions - entirely making the point of those who say be careful about the remit of any legislation created.
FiF said:
My thoughts without much basis in law revolves around the sauce for goose and gander concept. If a council wants to go down this route then council officials would become personally and criminally liable for their mistakes and decisions in office when they have clearly screwed up or failed to act properly when required.
Soon have their houses off them.
Yes lots of fun to be had there, FAFO.Soon have their houses off them.
First starting point though would be trying to get the council officers restrained from trying to misuse POCA.
Ultimately the council officers operate like there are no personal consequences and the law is whatever they feel it should be, and the courts need to remind them otherwise where that isn’t the case. You can't just pull things out of your arse.
Any tax the Govt have been receiving in the last 8 years have also been from the proceeds of crime then.
Its a daft situation all round, the owners infringed a regulation, they didn't get the right permission for the extractor. Its not criminal or an offence, its a regulation. I bet the actual police would say "its a civil matter" if you walked into the station to try to report your neighbour for his extractor fan having not permission.
Its a daft situation all round, the owners infringed a regulation, they didn't get the right permission for the extractor. Its not criminal or an offence, its a regulation. I bet the actual police would say "its a civil matter" if you walked into the station to try to report your neighbour for his extractor fan having not permission.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff