Beacon Cymru v Mitchell: Restitution claims dismissed despite late ECR provision

In Beacon Cymru Group Ltd v Mitchell [2025] EWHC 2477 (Ch), the High Court dismissed counterclaims for repayment of rent paid during a period when social housing landlords failed to provide mandatory electrical condition reports (ECRs) under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016.

Background

Following the court's earlier judgement in Coastal Housing Group Ltd v Mitchell [2024] EWHC 2831 (Ch), three Welsh social housing landlords had been found to have breached regulation 6(3) of the Renting Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) (Wales) Regulations 2022 by failing to provide ECRs to contract-holders by 15 December 2023. This breach meant the dwellings were deemed unfit for human habitation under regulation 6(6), rendering the contract-holders not required to pay rent until the ECRs were provided.

Despite this statutory exemption from paying rent, all three contract-holders continued making payments throughout the relevant period (December 2023 to March 2024). They subsequently brought restitutionary counterclaims seeking repayment of rent paid under a mistake of law.

The causation question

Mr Justice Griffiths and Judge Jarman KC heard extensive evidence from the defendants about what they would have done had they known their true legal position. Each witness demonstrated considerable loyalty to their landlord and reluctance to withhold rent without explicit written permission.

Mrs Dawn Mitchell stated she would have first contacted her landlord to request the ECR rather than immediately withholding rent. She emphasised her feelings of loyalty and gratitude, noting that withholding rent felt "quite combative" and not something she would consider without written confirmation from her landlord.

Ms Helen Louise Jones gave evidence that she would never withhold rent without written confirmation from her landlord explaining why she need not pay and for how long. She feared jeopardising her tenancy and risking homelessness for herself and her daughter.

Mr William John Wadley testified he would have conducted a full investigation and consulted his landlord before withholding rent. The court noted that when he did eventually withhold one month's rent in February 2025, this was done at his landlord's request purely to establish facts for the test case.

The court's findings

The court found as a matter of fact that none of the defendants would have withheld rent even had they known the true legal position. Each would have contacted their landlord, who would have immediately provided the ECR. The landlords accepted that ECRs existed and could have been provided "straight away" upon request.

Critically, the court found that the landlords would not have told contract-holders they were exempt from paying rent, as the landlords' own legal position (maintained until the first judgement) was that rent remained payable despite late ECR provision.

The court concluded that the mistake of law did not cause the rental payments, which proved fatal to all three counterclaims under the second limb of Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349.

Alternative grounds

The court provided additional reasoning for dismissing the claims. It held the enrichment was not unjust, as the statutory purpose—incentivising ECR compliance—was achieved once the ECRs were provided. The defendants received all contractual benefits except physical receipt of the ECR, suffering no actual loss.

Furthermore, restitutionary claims were inappropriate given the subsisting contractual relationships. The court emphasised that rent was paid pursuant to the contracts, not contrary to them, and that allowing recovery would reallocate risk beyond what the parties or legislature had agreed.

The judgement reinforces that mistake-based restitution requires proof of causation and that statutory purposes may be limited to specific enforcement mechanisms rather than extending to broader restitutionary remedies.