Signup to the SWLA
The following case provides vital clarification about the responsibilities of ‘rent-to-rent’ companies. Rent-to-rent companies take over the running of a property for a landlord.
The ruling in the case of Rakusen v Jepsen will have important implications for the private rented sector as a whole.
The landlord, Rakusen, agreed to let a flat to a rent-to-rent company. The property required a licence, but the company did not apply for one.
As a result of the failure to be licenced, the former tenants of the flat sought a Rent Repayment Order against Rakusen rather than the rent-to-rent company – even though he had not received rent directly from the tenants.
At an initial tribunal it was ruled that the Rent Repayment Order could be applied for against Rakusen. The Court of Appeal however later overturned the decision and ruled in Rakusen’s favour.
The Supreme Court ruled that where rent-to-rent companies take over the running of a property, they cannot shirk responsibility and expect to leave the landlord to pay for their legal failings.
Ben Beadle of the NRLA said “The ruling makes clear that it is the responsibility of rent-to-rent companies acting as a landlord to ensure that relevant legal requirements are met, since it is they who receive tenants’ rent. It is simply not right that such companies can take money from people without any responsibility for the property they are running.”
To read the full case background see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0188.html
Article Abridged from Property Industry Eye
