The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal in a case to decide whether a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) can be made against a superior landlord, usually the property owner, not just the immediate landlord.
It follows the long-running legal battle of Rakusen v Jepsen, culminating in August last year when the Court of Appeal ruled that RROs only apply to the immediate landlord, which was good news for those who find their property has been sublet unknowingly in rent-to-rent set-ups but not for tenants who struggle to take dodgy companies to task.
It overturned a previous decision by the Upper Tribunal, which ruled that an RRO application could be made against any landlord of the relevant property for the relevant period of the relevant offence.
Martin Rakusen granted a tenancy of his flat within Mandeville Mansion (pictured) on the Finchley Road in London, to Kensington Property Investment Group Ltd (KPIG) in May 2016, introduced by agents Hamptons.
KPIG then entered into separate written agreements with the four tenants.
Licence application
In November 2018, Hamptons told Rakusen that KPIG wanted to apply for a licence but none was granted and Rakusen did not renew KPIG’s tenancy in May 2019.
The tenants then applied for, and won, RROs totalling £26,140. Last year, the Court of Appeal allowed Rakusen’s appeal and struck out the claim against him, ruling that the correct interpretation of the law should relate to only the immediate landlord.
MORE: Read the full July 2021 Court of Appeal judgement
Landmark Chambers, which represents Safer Renting, says the case would be the first time the Supreme Court will consider the ‘rogue landlord’ provisions in the Housing Act 2004 and Housing and Planning Act 2016.
The appeal is expected to be heard towards the end of this year or early 2023.
Credit: Source link
