Rakusen v Jepsen and others

A Rent Repayment Order under section 40(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can only be made against the immediate landlord under the tenancy that generates the relevant rent, not against a superior landlord. The statutory language, context, legislative history, and policy considerations do not support extending liability to superior landlords.

Parties: Appellants: Mikkel Jepsen, Ronan Murphy, Stuart McArthur; Respondent: Martin Rakusen; Intervener: National Residential Landlords Association; Intervener: Safer Renting CIC
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 March 2023
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Rent Repayment Orders, Superior Landlord Liability, Housing and Planning Act 2016, Housing Act 2004, Interpretation of 'landlord', Private Rented Sector Regulation

Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Statutory Interpretation Rent Repayment Orders Superior Landlord Liability Housing and Planning Act 2016 Housing Act 2004 Interpretation of 'landlord' +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Mikkel Jepsen, Ronan Murphy, Stuart McArthur

Appellants

Martin Rakusen

Respondent

National Residential Landlords Association

Intervener

Safer Renting CIC

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can be made against a superior landlord, or only against the immediate landlord of the tenant.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed