The £1 Transaction That Protected a Landlord From Liability
Some headlines make you look twice. In this case, a landlord effectively transferred an entire risk away from themselves for less than the price of a coffee , and the courts agreed it was valid.
The case involved a rent-to-rent arrangement, where the superior landlord (the property owner) leased the property to an operator, who then sublet rooms. The operator failed to secure the necessary licensing, and the council tried to pursue the owner for penalties. The courts ruled in favour of the owner, confirming they were not liable for the operator’s failings. The details are reported here: Landlord Guild – rent-to-rent court battle win.
Why this matters
- Contracts work both ways – when drafted properly, they allocate not just income but also responsibility.
- Licensing liability is not automatic – it depends on who actually has control of the property and the relevant duties under law.
- Disputes can last years – this case was described as “long-running,” showing the importance of having the stamina (and documentation) to see it through.
Is it really a £1 deal?
No, the £1 was symbolic – a nominal consideration often used in contracts. The value here was not in the payment but in the terms. The agreement clearly placed licensing responsibilities on the operator, protecting the landlord when the operator failed to comply.
Your experience
Have you ever had to defend yourself against enforcement for something your tenant or managing agent did?
How did you resolve it?
Share your story below – it could help another landlord facing the same situation.
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Council under fire over immediate HMO rule change
Member Since February 2025 - Comments: 69
1:03 PM, 21st August 2025, About 8 months ago
There is no reference to £1 in the summary to which this article links or in the judgment itself. It is, however, good to have clarity that RROs can only be made against the immediate landlord who received the rent payments. The judgment points out that fines and criminal proceedings can still be imposed on superior landlords and letting agents.
Member Since August 2025 - Comments: 6
4:49 PM, 21st August 2025, About 8 months ago
When i used to rent out properties, I sometimes had vacating tenants leave white goods in situ, fridges, washing machines etc. When new tenants moved in they would often ask if these items were included. I used to say ‘no’ but I would sell them as ‘scrap metal’ for £1. That way I had no liability if they broke down!
Member Since August 2025 - Comments: 41
12:54 PM, 24th August 2025, About 8 months ago
In reference to abolishing section 21 I think is a wrong move where landlords have to give reason to evict a tenant. This will go on the tenants data base and that particular tenant will have difficulty to find a place as the next landlord will learn this during ref check for suitable tenant. Similarly the pet issue if someone spends about 15k to 30k to upgrade property how can someone let it to be destroyed by pets. I say this as it happened to us where the tenant after three months brought in dog,painted walls in black colour and took us a while to terminate the contract. After eviction we discovered paw marks on walls wee smell on carpets,beetles under carpet I assume coming out at night to live on pet food scraps,permanently destroyed pvc french doors by paw marks and wee smell still lingering on carpet after 8months on. It took two and half times the deposit amount to update property once again within the six months and all we got half the deposit amount awarded by adjudicator whose decision cannot be challenged,why?.Pets option and tenant selection should be landlords choice and in that i ask a question which landlord would want to evict a good tenant???Section 21 was best thing where a tenant or landlord did not had to give reason and that helped both sides to find
a new tenant for landlord and tenant to find another accommodation asap. By new laws government is driving small time landlords out of market which were providing small time builders jobs and treasury taxes by the way of buying and selling properties The results of pushing out small time landlords will slow the economy even further that is already in trouble.
By creating social housing government will not win because some of the people seeking accommodation will be permanent claimants of social security help . This will mean more cost to already suffering social security. Government should invest that money to encourage and train people to go out to work skilled or unskilled for the sake of economy.
Best way to help the economy is to scrap the changes regularise the excessive rents to help tenants and unjustified demand should penalise the landlords.. Equally penalise the tenants who are abusive, and where one tenant take on tenancy contract then brings in more unregistered people afterwards,runs away without paying utility bills and rents,otherwise the economy is further doomed. If one thinks big rental companies should be brought in then government need to think twice that when these companies go bust,who is going to foot the loss . I believe it will be first a small contractors whome will not get paid generating more unemployment
then a big time tax loss to the government treasury.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2197 - Articles: 2
5:03 PM, 24th August 2025, About 8 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Dev S at 24/08/2025 – 12:54
Revert to the 1988 act and scrap most subsequent legislation. This will reduce rents, particularly when section 24 is repealed. It’s not a crime (yet) to wish for politicians to have some common sense!
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1168
10:57 AM, 25th August 2025, About 8 months ago
The Renters Rights Bill seeks a change in the current law and will make the superior landlord equally liable.
Member Since August 2025 - Comments: 41
11:38 AM, 21st September 2025, About 7 months ago
The reason for landlords existing market is that there is nothing said to save good landlords to continue in business. Its alll about good or bad tenants rights without making them responsibile for not paying on time, house illegal people not on the signed contract,minimum amount of deposit which covers nothing and get away with all the destruction caused to the property, unable to evict them lengthy court cases etc.
All section 21 required was to establish some order for both sides to establish better society and freedom to invest in property market. The way the government is going with heavy taxes and giving the tenant a reason to be more uncooporative there will be no property left up for rent .no generated tax income what will the government will do then when treasury will be empty?
I believe there is still a time for someone
To rake the leadership and save the money generating economy immediately for the country as a whole or face consqueces.