NRLA moves to ensure landlords’ interest are considered in key RRO case
The NRLA has intervened in a long-running legal wrangle over who pays a rent repayment order (RRO) when a property is operated via a rent-to-rent agreement.
The Rakusen vs Jepsen case will, ultimately, decide whether it’s the ‘superior’ (or actual) landlord or the ‘immediate’ one – i.e. the rent-to-rent agency – who is liable to pay the RRO.
The case has been rumbling on since 2019 when four tenants living in a property in North London realised their property had not been licenced under local HMO regulation rules.
They then successfully applied for an RRO not against the agency, whose management of the property had come to an end, but the owner of the leasehold flat, also called the superior landlord.
£26,000
In a subsequent Upper Tribunal case, the landlord argued it was the agency who should pay the £26,000 RRO as they had managed it at the time of the offence and received the rent from the tenants.
The Upper Tribunal awarded in favour of landlord Martin Rakusen but gave the tenants leave to appeal, largely because an earlier Upper Tribunal decision in Goldsborough & Anor v CA Property Management Ltd (2019). It had determined that an RRO could be made against a superior landlord despite there being no contractual connection between them and the tenants.
Rakusen then took his case to the Court of Appeal which found in his favour in July last year – i.e. that the agency should pay the RRO not him – but the tenants’ legal team then won a new hearing in the Court of Appeal.
NRLA intervention
A date for this is now being awaited, but in the meantime the NRLA has applied to intervene in the case because it believes that the outcome of the case may affect other landlords whose interests should be heard and whom it wishes to represent.
“This does not mean that we are directly supporting either litigant or have become party to the case,” it says in a statement published today.
Its Policy Director Chris Norris (pictured) adds: “The Housing and Planning Act 2016 specifies that an order can be made against ‘a landlord’.
“The Court of Appeal decision found that had parliament wished the legislation to act as a deterrent to superior landlords, it could have made “clear and express provision for it”, which it did not.
“In our intervention, we do not seek to defend bad practice or provide a route for rogue rent-to-rent operators to evade sanctions. We intend to make clear the potential implications for other superior landlords who may equally be victims of unscrupulous rent-to-rent firms.”
Read more about rent to rent orders.
©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – NRLA moves to ensure landlords’ interest are considered in key RRO case | LandlordZONE.
View Full Article: NRLA moves to ensure landlords’ interest are considered in key RRO case
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,916)
Archives
- December 2024 (43)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025
- Shelter Scotland slams council for stripping homeless households of ‘human rights’