Anthony Gold

Get in touch

020 7940 4060

  • People
  • Insights
  • What to Expect
  • Contact Us
Anthony Gold
  • Services
    • Housing And Property Disputes
      • Property Disputes
      • Leasehold Services
      • Services For Commercial Landlords, Tenants And Agents
      • Services For Residential Landlords And Agents
      • Housing And Tenancy Issues
      • Judicial Review
      • COVID-19 Update
    • Injury And Medical Claims
      • Life Changing Injuries
      • Medical Claims
      • Personal Injury
      • Child Abuse
    • Family And Relationships
      • Starting Relationships
      • Ending Relationships
      • After Relationships End
      • Family Mediation
      • Religious & Cultural Issues
      • Family Law FAQs
      • COVID-19 Update
    • Conveyancing, Property & Business Services
      • Business Agreements
      • Business Disagreements
      • Commercial Property
      • Commercial Property Disputes
      • Leasehold Services
      • Residential Property
      • COVID-19 Update
    • Wills, Estates & Court Of Protection
      • Wills, Trusts And Estates
      • Claims Against Trusts And Estates
      • Capacity And Court Of Protection
      • COVID-19 Update
    • Dispute Resolution & Employment Law
      • Personal Claims
      • Professional Negligence
      • Claims Against Trusts And Estates
      • Employment
      • COVID-19 Update
    • People
    • Insights
    • What to Expect
    • Contact Us
  • Get in touch

    020 7940 4060

  • Housing and Property Disputes
  • Injury and Medical Claims
  • Family and Relationships
  • Conveyancing, Property & Business Services
  • Wills, Estates & Court of Protection
  • Dispute Resolution & Employment Law
  • Property disputes
  • Ownership disputes and shares in property
  • Challenging the decisions of councils and public bodies
  • Rights of way, boundaries, covenants and easements
  • Party wall disputes
  • Leasehold services
  • Lease extension
  • Collective enfranchisement
  • Service charge disputes
  • Repairs to leaseholds
  • Right to manage
  • Services for commercial landlords, tenants and agents
  • Breach of covenant
  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession
  • Dilapidations and failing to repair
  • Lease renewals
  • Services for residential landlords and agents
  • Regulatory issues
  • Repossession
  • Agents (including letting agreements)
  • Housing and tenancy issues
  • Repairs
  • Repossession and eviction
  • Rehousing and homelessness
  • Judicial review
  • COVID-19 Update
  • Existing Clients
  • New Clients
  • Life changing injuries
  • Brain injury
  • Spinal cord injury
  • Amputation
  • Psychiatric injury
  • Fatal injuries and inquests
  • Medical claims
  • Surgical claims
  • Non-Surgical Claims
  • Birth injury
  • Child health and paediatrics
  • GP and primary care treatment
  • Private healthcare
  • Personal injury
  • Road traffic accidents
  • Accidents abroad
  • Accidents at work
  • Faulty products
  • Public liability and other accidents
  • Child abuse
  • Child abuse
  • Starting relationships
  • Pre nuptial agreements
  • Pre civil partnership and same sex relationship agreements
  • Cohabitation and living together agreements
  • Property ownership agreements
  • Ending relationships
  • Divorce and separation
  • Ending a civil partnership
  • Ending cohabitation
  • Agreeing parenting
  • Agreeing finance and assets
  • International arrangements
  • After relationships end
  • Abduction and leave to remove children
  • Changing and challenging parenting agreements
  • Changing and challenging financial agreements
  • Grandparents’ rights
  • Family mediation
  • Family Mediation
  • Religious & cultural issues
  • Jewish family law
  • Islamic family law
  • Family Law FAQs
  • Children FAQs
  • Cohabitation Agreement FAQs
  • Divorce and Separation FAQs
  • Financial Issues FAQs
  • Pre-Marital Contracts FAQs
  • COVID-19 Update
  • Existing Clients
  • New Clients
  • Business agreements
  • Business advice
  • Employment
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Supplier contracts
  • Business disagreements
  • Building disputes
  • Civil and commercial mediation
  • Claims against directors
  • Contract disputes
  • Debt recovery
  • Directors personal liabilities
  • Employment
  • Professional negligence
  • Commercial property
  • Commercial Sale and Purchases
  • Commercial loans and mortgages
  • Property Investment: plot developers & plot buyers
  • Auction: sales and purchases
  • Commercial advice for landlords and tenants
  • Planning advice
  • Mortgage debentures and securities
  • Commercial property disputes
  • Breach of covenant
  • Dilapidations and failing to repair
  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession
  • Lease renewals
  • Leasehold services
  • Lease extension
  • Collective enfranchisement
  • Service charge disputes
  • Repairs to leaseholds
  • Right to manage
  • Residential property
  • Residential Sale and Purchases
  • Property Investment: plot developers & plot buyers
  • Remortgages
  • Auction: sales and purchases
  • Ownership matters and transfers
  • COVID-19 Update
  • Existing Clients
  • New Clients
  • Small Business Clients
  • Wills, trusts and estates
  • Making a will
  • Applying for probate
  • Distributing the estate
  • Arranging lasting power of attorney
  • Trust advice
  • Tax planning and advice
  • Claims against trusts and estates
  • Contesting a will
  • Losses caused by trustees
  • Capacity and court of protection
  • Appointing a deputy
  • Removing a deputy
  • Arranging lasting power of attorney
  • Gifts and legacies
  • Managing assets under a deputyship
  • Care issues
  • Removing lasting and enduring power of attorney
  • Special educational needs
  • Capacity and court of protection
  • COVID-19 Update
  • Existing Clients
  • New Clients
  • Personal claims
  • Debt recovery
  • Ownership disputes and shares in property
  • Civil and commercial mediation
  • Building disputes
  • Professional negligence
  • Professional Negligence
  • Property Fraud
  • Investment Fraud
  • Claims against trusts and estates
  • Contesting a will
  • Losses caused by trustees
  • Employment
  • Employment
  • Unfair or Wrongful Dismissal
  • Settlement Agreements
  • COVID-19 Update
  • Existing Clients
  • New Clients
Anthony Gold > Blog > Update on which ‘landlord’ a Rent Repayment Order can be made against

Robin Stewart

robin.stewart@anthonygold.co.uk

Share
  • November 6, 2019
  • Blog
  • By  Robin Stewart 
  • 3 comments

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


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”.

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 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 relation 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.

*Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

Robin Stewart

robin.stewart@anthonygold.co.uk

Get in touch

Call, email or use a contact form – whichever suits you. We’ll let you know the best person to help you get started.

Call or Email

020 7940 4060

mail@anthonygold.co.uk

Comments

Add your comment

We need your name and email address to make sure you’re a real person. We won’t share your email address with anyone else or send you spam. Please complete fields marked with *.

3 thoughts on “Update on which ‘landlord’ a Rent Repayment Order can be made against”

  1. Benjamin HERM-MORRIS says:
    November 6, 2019 at 11:34 am

    The key to understanding this decision, and how it will work in practice, is to realise that these Rent-to-Rent arrangements are schemes that aim, at least in part, to provide a legislative shield for the landlords.

    Apart from that aspect, there is not a lot of difference to a traditional managing agency that is taking a %age cut on the rents.

    If a RRO would be awarded against a landlord using a commission based managing agency, that landlord would not have received all the rent paid by the tenants either, the agency having deducted their commission and any other costs before passing on the balance. No doubt the Respondent landlord in such a case would make an argument for an award reduction on that basis just as a landlord owner using a R2R agent might do.
    We are grateful for the suggestion that one might now bring a RRO against both: R2R agent and owner. We hadn’t thought of that! Expect to see another appeal from us on that at some future point!

    Reply
    1. Robin Stewart says:
      November 8, 2019 at 2:03 pm

      I think for landlords the attraction of rent to rent is often just the (false) promise of a steady guaranteed income
      and an easy hands-off money spinner, but no doubt sometimes it is a more cynical attempt to avoid regulation.

      I do think there are some important difference between a true agent and a ‘R2R agent’ – for example an ‘R2R agent’ is in complete control of the property, is collecting the rent on their own account, and is not under any duty to act in the best interests of the owner. So there will be some slightly different issues when establishing whether or not a criminal offence has been committed by the landlord.

      I am sure you are quite right about the deductions.

      Reply
  2. Ben Reeve-Lewis says:
    December 9, 2019 at 4:05 pm

    Very interesting opinions there on different management arrangements but my team do RROs for tenants and most are dodgy R2R scams where truth about the nature of the business arrangement between owner and agent is always shrouded in lies and deceit, depending on whose finger is pointing at whom. So such arguments are rather academic when it comes to clearly identifying the right person to go for.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code

Related Services

  • Breach of covenant

  • Building disputes

  • Challenging the decisions of councils and public bodies

  • Dilapidations and failing to repair

  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession

  • Ownership disputes and shares in property

  • Party wall disputes

  • Planning advice

  • Property ownership agreements

  • Regulatory issues

  • Rehousing and homelessness

  • Remortgages

  • Repairs to leaseholds

  • Repossession and eviction

  • Repossession

  • Right to manage

  • Rights of way, boundaries, covenants and easements

  • Service charge disputes

  • Tenders and auctions

About the author

  • Robin Stewart

Meet the team

  • Housing and Property Disputes

You might also like...

  • Supreme Court confirms relief from forfeiture available to licensees with “possessory rights”

  • I won in the First-tier Tribunal and the other side was unreasonable: do they have to pay my legal costs?

  • Deadline to appeal against a financial penalty under the Housing and Planning Act 2016

Secure online payments

Payment page through Worldpay

About Us

  • Accessibility
  • Compliance
  • Responsible Business
  • Equality & Diversity
  • History
  • Our Beliefs
  • List of Partners

Accredited by

Lexel Parctice
76000Award
Trustpilot

Careers

  • Trainee Solicitors
  • Vacancies

Solicitors in London Bridge

Solicitors in Elephant and Castle

Solicitors in Streatham

Follow us on Twitter Follow us on LinkedIn Follow us on Instagram View our YouTube channel

Get in touch

020 7940 4060



Anthony Gold

Contact Us

Anthony Gold

Request a callback

Copyright © Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP. All rights reserved. Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC433560 and is authorised and regulated by the by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration Number 810601

Site managed by Prism Production. Brand by David Carroll & Co.