This case involves an appeal regarding rent repayment orders under Chapter 4 pt. 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant landlords (Cussinel & Cussinel) against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which granted respondent renters (Guerin & others) rent repayment orders (RRO).

As an intermediary tenant, the appellants rented their house to a company, who went on to rent it to the respondents. The property was not licenced to become a house in multiple occupations as required under s72 of the Housing Act 2004, however the respondent’s occupation had caused it to become one.

Applying the case of Rakusen v Jepsen & others (2023), the Upper Tribunal (LANDS CHAMBER) held an RRO could not be made against a superior landlord. As a result, they overturned the First-tier Tribunals’ decision on the grounds that the appellants were not the respondents’ landlords as intended under s40(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

However, the respondents claimed that, in accordance with s18(1) of the Housing Act 1988, a direct relationship of landlord and tenant had existed between them and the appellants because, upon dissolution of the company, the respondents had become the direct tenants of the appellants who, in any case, were entitled to actual possession of the property.

Applying the case of Ladd v Marshall (1954), the Upper Tribunal held the evidence would not have changed the outcome as the company’s tenancy, which it held from the appellants, did not end when the company was dissolved, so it instead became unowned property (‘bona vacantia’) in accordance with s1012 of the Companies Act 2006 and vested in the Crown.

If you have any queries or require support with landlord and tenant matters, please feel free to contact Lumine Solicitors on 020 3950 2246 or Contact Us HERE