The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal in a case concerning the Rent Repayment Order regime in the Housing Act 2004 and Housing and Planning Act 2016, it has been reported.
Landmark Chambers said the case of Rakusen v Jepsen would be the first occasion on which the Supreme Court considers the “rogue landlord” provisions in those Acts.
The set said it was anticipated that the appeal will be heard towards the end of this year or early 2023.
At issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a rent repayment order under Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can be made against a superior landlord of the tenant in whose favour the order is sought or can only be made against an immediate landlord of that tenant.
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (Judge Amran Vance) in a decision dated 18 December 2019 and the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President) in a decision dated 11 November 2020  UKUT 298 (LC),  HLR 18 both held that an RRO could be made against a superior landlord as well as an immediate landlord.
In Rakusen v Jepsen & Ors (Rev 1)  EWCA Civ 1150 the Court of Appeal allowed Mr Rakusen’s appeal and struck out the claim against him.
Tom Morris of Landmark Chambers represents Mr Rakusen.
Justin Bates and Charles Bishop, both of Landmark Chambers, represent Safer Renting, who intervened in the Court of Appeal.