• Home
  • About
  • Clinic
  • Training
  • Eco Landlords
  • Landlord Law

The Landlord Law Blog

From landlord and tenant lawyer Tessa Shepperson

  • Home
  • Posts
  • News & comment
  • Cases
  • Tenants
    • Penalties for breaching tenancy rules
    • 15 Places for tenant help
  • Clinic
  • Podcasts
    • Interview
    • Surgery
  • Series
    • Analysis
    • should law and justice be free
    • HMO Basics
    • Tenancy Agreements 33 days
    • Airbnb
    • Grounds for Eviction
    • The Deregulation Act Explained
    • Tips

Update on which ‘landlord’ a Rent Repayment Order can be made against

November 12, 2019 by Tessa Shepperson

FlatsFrom Robin Stewart of Anthony Gold solicitors

I wrote in an earlier blog post about some of the complications faced by tenants and by the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) when trying to identify who can be the subject of a rent repayment order (“RRO”).

In that post, I mentioned a pending appeal which would consider whether an RRO can be made against a property owner who was not the direct landlord of the applicant.

The Upper Tribunal’s decision in that appeal, Goldsbrough v CA Property Management Ltd and others [2019] UKUT 311 (LC) has now been published, and the result was not the one I predicted.

Goldsbrough v CA Property Management Ltd

Mr and Mrs Gardner, the owners of the property in question, had granted a lease for five years to CA Property Management Ltd. CA Property Management Ltd then sublet individual rooms to tenants in an arrangement which is sometimes called ‘rent to rent’.

Two of those tenants applied for rent repayments orders against Mr and Mrs Gardner, alleging that the property was an unlicensed HMO. One of the tenants also made an application against CA Property Management Ltd alleging harassment. No findings have yet been made about these allegations because the FTT had first considered whether the claims could proceed against Mr and Mrs Gardner at all.

The FTT made a finding that CA Property Management Ltd was not merely an agent acting for the owners, but was, in fact, the applicants’ landlord. This meant, according to the FTT, that the cases could only proceed against CA Property Management Ltd, since a rent repayment order can only be made against the landlord.

The tenant challenged this decision by appealing to the Upper Tribunal, assisted by Flat Justice who have written about the case here. On appeal, the tenants’ argument that CA Property Management Ltd was merely an agent for Mr and Mrs Gardner was rejected.

However, the Upper Tribunal ruled that Mr and Mrs Gardner could face an RRO because the Housing and Planning Act 2016 states that a rent repayment order can be made against “a landlord” and never specifies that it must be the direct landlord of the applicant.

Mr and Mrs Gardner are the landlords of CA Property Management Ltd in respect of the same property, and this was sufficient to make them “a landlord”.

The Effect of this decision

This decision will help tenants wishing to apply for a rent repayment order if their immediate landlord is not the owner of the property.

Tenants generally would prefer to make a claim against the property owner because it is much easier to enforce an RRO against a property owner than a ‘middle man’ who could be a person using a false identity or a limited company with no assets. If such a company is dissolved, there is effectively nothing that the tenant can do to recover the money owed to them.

Property owners considering whether to become involved in ‘rent to rent’ schemes now have another reason to be wary of these arrangements.

The Upper Tribunal’s interpretation of the law will be binding on judges in the First-tier Tribunal, but I expect that there will be further appeals on this issue at some stage. It is certainly correct that ‘landlord’ is not defined in Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and a ‘superior landlord’ is a landlord, but ‘rent repayment order’ is defined at s40(2) of the Act [for applications made by tenants] as an order for the landlord under a tenancy of housing in England to repay an amount of rent paid by a tenant.

It is a surprising result that a property owner can be ordered to ‘repay’ rent paid by a tenant to a different landlord under a tenancy which they are not a party to. That does not appear to me to be an entirely literal interpretation of ‘repay’.

Knock on effects of this decision

Although Upper Tribunal stated at paragraph 32 of the judgement that “the landlord” must be a landlord of the property where the tenant lived, that is not expressly stated in the Act.

The clearest requirement for a link between the landlord and the tenant’s property is that the offence committed by the landlord must relate to housing that, at the time of the offence, was let to the tenant [s41(2)(a)]. The effect of that is, perhaps, that a tenant could obtain an RRO against an agent who commits an offence related to property rented by the tenant, provided that the agent is also a landlord of a tenancy of housing (somewhere else) in England.

This argument might be characterised as rather adventurous and might stretch the legislation further than the Upper Tribunal would allow, but I would suggest that rebutting this argument relies on applying a non-literal reading of s40 akin to the one disavowed by the Upper Tribunal in Goldsbrough.

The First-tier Tribunal will now have to consider how it applies Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 in cases where there are two landlords.

The legislation does not specifically rule out RROs being made against both landlords, and while the amount a tenant can recover under any RRO is capped at the rent paid in the relevant twelve-month period, a tenant could argue that the legislation does not rule out two landlords both being ordered to pay the maximum amount.

The FTT might wish to make an order against both landlords jointly (so that the tenant can enforce the award against either one) but it is not clear that Housing and Planning Act 2016 permits this – if the tenant is entitled to an RRO against each landlord, then this would be two separate orders and the tenant would presumably be entitled to enforce both.

This article first appeared on the Anthony Gold blog here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: Law case report

Scroll down for the comments

Landlord Law for Landlords

Are you a landlord, unsure how to manage your properties in these uncertain times?  My Landlord Law service can help you in this crisis by providing online help and guidance and giving you one to one advice in the members' forum area.

>> Find out more about Landlord Law.


IMPORTANT: Please check the date of the post above - remember, if it is an old post, the law may have changed since it was written.

You should always get independent legal advice before taking any action.

Notes on comments:

For personal landlord and tenant related problems, please use our >> Blog Clinic.
Note that we do not publish all comments, please >> click here to read our terms of use and comments policy. Comments close after three months.

Keep up with the news on Landlord Law blog!

To get posts sent direct to your email in box click here

About Tessa Shepperson

Tessa is a specialist landlord & tenant solicitor and the creator of this site! She is a director of Landlord Law Services which now hosts Landlord Law and other services for landlords and property professionals.

« Landlord Law Blog Roundup from 4th November
Letting agents using their keys to enter to show buyers round while the tenant is in bed »

Comments

  1. David says

    November 12, 2019 at 5:56 PM

    Where does this leave freehlolders where the leaseholder let’s the property and commits an offence to which the RRO applies? Or a landlord who’s tenant sublet without their knowledge or permission?

    • HB Welcome says

      November 13, 2019 at 1:04 AM

      Right up the creek without a paddle.

      (I’d also add to your list the private landlords who sublet with “guaranteed rent” to social housing landlords)

    • Robin Stewart says

      November 13, 2019 at 9:51 AM

      The freeholder would still have to commit the offence themselves to be liable to face their own RRO.

      It’s possible that the freeholder will have a defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ if the tenant really did sublet without their knowledge and permission – but this can be quite subjective, and if the freeholder has turned a blind eye or not made any effort to supervise what is going on at the property, it is less likely that the freeholder would have a reasonable excuse.

      There’s another element to the offence of failing to hold a licence – a landlord can only commit the offence if they are a ‘person managing’ or ‘person having control’. These are technical legal designations and in some circumstances the freeholder would be able to argue that they do not fit the criteria for either one.

“Interesting posts on residential landlord & tenant law and practice - in England & Wales UK”

Free Webinars

Subscribe to the Landlord Law Blog by email

Never miss another post!

Choose whether you want to get
>> daily updates or just the
>> weekly roundups

You will also get a FREE Ebook!

If you are new to the blog >> click here

Get Your Free Ebook:

Click to get your Free Ebook

>> Click Here for Your Free Copy

Featured Post

Coronavirus

Landlords and the Coronavirus Emergency – keeping records

Tessa’s Podcast

The Landlord and Lawyer Podcast

Worried about Insurance?

Landlord Law Insurance Mini-Course

Some of our Other Services:

Disclaimer

The purpose of this blog is to provide information, comment and discussion.

Although Tessa, or guest bloggers, may from time to time, give helpful comments to readers' questions, these can only be based on the information given by the reader in his or her comment, which may not contain all material facts.

Any comments or suggestions provided by Tessa or any guest bloggers should not, therefore be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice from a qualified lawyer regarding any actual legal issue or dispute.

Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice or perceived as creating a lawyer-client relationship (apart from the Fast Track block clinic service - so far as the questioners only are concerned).

Please also note that any opinion expressed by a guest blogger is his or hers alone, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Tessa Shepperson, or the other writers on this blog.

Cookies

You can find out more about our use of 'cookies' on this website here.

Associated sites

Landlord Law Services
Tenant Law
Eco Landlords
Your Law Store

Legal

Landlord Law Blog is © 2006 – 2020 Tessa Shepperson.

Note that Tessa is an introducer for Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers and will get a commission from sales made via links on this website.

© 2006–2021 Tessa Shepperson | Rainmaker Platform | Contact Page | Log in

This website or its third-party tools use cookies which are necessary to its functioning and required to improve your experience. By clicking the consent button, you agree to allow the site to use, collect and/or store cookies.
I accept