Rakusen v Jepsen [2023] – Supreme Court Says RROs Only Apply to Immediate Landlords

“Disclaimer:Tenant Support UK is not a law firm and does not provide regulated legal advice. All content on this website is for general informational purposes only, based on publicly available legal guidance and personal experience. If you need legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult a qualified solicitor or a trusted housing advice service.“

Court: Supreme Court
Date: 1 March 2023
Subject: Scope of Rent Repayment Order liability under the Housing and Planning Act 2016

Background:

The tenants (Jepsen and others) applied for a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) against Mr. Rakusen, who was the head landlord and legal owner of the property.
However, the tenants had no direct tenancy with him, their agreement was with an intermediate landlord in a rent-to-rent arrangement.

The legal question was whether tenants can apply for an RRO against a superior landlord, or only against their immediate landlord.

Supreme Court Decision:

The Court ruled unanimously that RROs under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can only be made against the tenant’s immediate landlord.
The term “landlord” in the statute refers only to the person who let the property to the tenant, not superior landlords.

Legal Impact:

Rent-to-rent tenants must claim RROs only from the entity they directly rent from.
Superior landlords are shielded from RRO claims where no direct tenancy exists.
The decision overrules previous interpretations (e.g. in Goldsbrough v CA Property Management) that allowed claims higher up the chain.

Links:

Rakusen v Jepsen [2023] – Supreme Court

Apply for a Rent Repayment Order (RRO1)

Help With Fees

The Toolbox: 9 Ways to Fight Back Without Moving to Mars