The Supreme Court has ended a long-running case of tenants chasing a landlord of an unlicensed shared house for compensation through a rent repayment order.
The tenants finally ended legal recourse when Britain’s most senior court judges rejected their case.
The ruling in Rakusen v Jepson [2023] UKSC 9 means that a superior landlord is not liable for rent repayment order claims based on the failures of a rent-to-rent landlord.
The court battle started in May 2016, when Rakusen leased a London flat to Kensington Property Investment Group Ltd (KPIG).
KPIG sublet the flat as a house in multiple occupation to three tenants for a total rent of £2,297 a month but failed to licence the property.
In 2019, the tenants started proceedings for a £26,140 rent repayment order because Rakuten had not licenced the flat as an HMO, even though he had leased the home to KPIG, who arranged and managed the letting.
A series of tribunal and court cases followed, culminating at the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. It holds that a Rent Repayment Order cannot be made against a superior landlord,” says the ruling.
Read the judgement
