A not-for-profit business that advocates tenants use Rent Repayment Orders against landlords has issued a furious response to a Supreme Court decision.
Earlier this week the Court issued its judgment in the case of Rakusen v Jepsen. In this case the landlord, a Mr 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.
Rent-to-rent companies take over the running of a property for a landlord. 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.
But now the Supreme Court has 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.
In response the Justice For Tenants organisation has issued a lengthy and outspoken response.
This says: “If the law doesn’t change, it is not a case of if we will have another Awaab Ishak in the Private Rented Sector, or when we will have another Awaab, but how many and how often. If the government does not amend the legislation, those most affected by this cost-of-living crisis will pay the ultimate price for their struggle. They will pay with their lives and health through fires in death-trap properties and breathing problems from untreated damp and mould.
“This decision creates a blueprint for property owners who want to maximise their profit, cram as many tenants as can fit into inhuman conditions and extract extra rent from desperate humans who need a place to call home. Unfortunately, two-thirds of councils lack the resources to prosecute a single landlord each year, and the only realistic protection available to tenants is applying for a Rent Repayment Order.
“With this Supreme Court ruling, rogue landlords can sidestep the law and tar the reputation of all landlords.”
Justice For Tenants claims there is a “criminal blueprint” given the green light by the Supreme Court’s decision.
It says this blueprint involves a landlord creating a company with no assets, renting their property to that company, and the company renting out each room.
The campaign says: “The tenant can only sue the company with no assets, which will not pay any court award, eating up the limited resources of the taxpayer-funded court system. The landlord can avoid putting in safety measures and ignore the law, knowing they have made an intelligent business decision, because there is almost no risk that anything will happen to them.”
Now Justice For Tenants says the government must amend what it calls “this broken legislation” and it claims: “If the law is not amended, we must remember this moment. We must remember it when families appear on the news to share memories of their children who died when studying at university in a property run by this arrangement. We must remember it when another story breaks about a child dying from breathing in toxic mould that no one fixed because no one cared. We must remember that there was an opportunity to change the law and protect the most vulnerable.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
These tenants must remember to open their windows and dry their washing outside. This is not a fraudulent blueprint for claiming compensation from landlords.
Mould doesn’t grow in privately owned houses. When it appears it is dealt with quickly. Not grown deliberately for compensation.
Whilst I can understand the frustration of Justice for Tenants the job of the Supreme Court was to apply the law and not to create new laws. There should be no criticism of the Supreme Court judges for doing their job, it is for parliament to make or change the law if it is not fit for purpose.
Point is these weird organisations can issue libellous comment, untrue, and get away with it. Whose funding them ?
We all on this forum know the truth when it comes to mould. The truth and facts though appear to count for nought.
Best news I’ve heard this week. These parasite organisations realising their whole business model about to fold. Not for profit - they just pay themselves high salaries
Diane. The Supreme Court is the highest in the land and it is what it is Case law so it’s Law.
Its Mr Michael Gove that’s breaking legislation created by Parliament. Selective licensing was meant to be Selective for problem parts of a Borough not Borough wide, if it’s Borough wide it’s not Selective.
So instead of Applying to 3 Wards it Applies to 18 for example.
Previously you could Rent to a Family’s in 15 of those Wards without a license which was the idea to give priority to Families but now it applies to all including Families so now why rent to Families the main reason for accepting them is gone, nice one Mr Gove.
This seems like a totally hysterical response. Its a big leap from the legal case which seems totally correct ie if there is a rent to rent agreement then whoever is receiving the rent should have applied for the licence and any other compliance, to assuming all landlords will operate their so called "criminal blueprint" ie creating a company with no assets, renting their property to that company, and the company renting out each room. TBH I had never heard of this so called criminal blueprint.
Sound like a bunch of drama queens to me
Or a bunch of whining left wing Millenials.
Please login to comment