The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) wants to hear from landlords who have let property on a rent-to-rent basis so it can contribute to a high-profile case at the Supreme Court.
It believes the outcome of the upcoming Rakusen v Jepsen appeal has potential implications for superior landlords as it will rule over whether the landlord – in this case, the tenant – should be responsible for a rent repayment order (RRO) or if a superior landlord, or any landlord in the chain, should be held responsible.
Rakusen v Jepsen concerns a landlord who agreed to let their licensable property to a rent-to-rent company, however, a licence wasn’t applied for, and the former tenants sought a RRO against the superior landlord – not the rent-to-rent company.
Read more about the case.
The Upper Tribunal ruled that an order could be applied for against the superior landlord, however the Court of Appeal found in the landlord’s favour.
“All too often, the superior landlord may be surprised to find that the rent-to-rent company has failed to meet one or more of their legal responsibilities. In some cases, they may even be surprised to discover their tenant is subletting at all,” explains NRLA chief executive Ben Beadle (pictured).
If the court were to change the position adopted by the Court of Appeal, then authorised rent-to-rent arrangements will likely become less common, leading to a lower availability of budget accommodation to rent on a room by room basis, says the NRLA.
Landlords will also be unprotected from unauthorised rent-to-rent arrangements.
Unconscionable
“It seems unconscionable that a landlord should be subject to a financial penalty to a sub-tenant, whose existence he might not even be aware of, as a result of the dishonesty or failures of the tenant,” adds Beadle.
The NRLA wants to make a submission to the court before the hearing on 26th January and has an online survey https://www.nrla.org.uk/rent-to-rent-survey for landlords to fill in.
