On 27 October 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal clarified that the Consumer Protection Act, 2008 (CPA) does not apply to every residential lease. In particular, a private individual renting out their own property is not, without more, acting “in the ordinary course of business” under the CPA.
The CPA protects consumers in transactions where goods or services are supplied “in the ordinary course of business” for a consideration. “Services” include granting access to premises under a “rental.” However, the Act’s wording requires that the supplier be in business, engaged in the continual marketing of goods or services and that the lease forms part of that supplier’s ordinary, day-to-day business activities. Fixed-term “consumer agreements” under section 14 carry specific rules for cancellation and maximum duration, but those rules only apply if the lease is a consumer agreement in the first place.
The case concerned a residential property that the owners, who had emigrated, rented out while deciding whether to sell. They later sold the property and, under a clause in a subsequent lease, gave three months’ notice to terminate the lease. The tenant argued the CPA applied, claiming the lease was a fixed-term consumer agreement that could only be cancelled by the supplier for material breach.
The Court rejected this argument and held that:
- The CPA applies only where the lessor is acting in the ordinary course of business. That means the lessor is in the business of letting property, continually marketing those services, and the lease forms part of the supplier’s normal, routine operations.
- A once-off or asset-protection lease by private individuals is not the ordinary course of business. The owners were not suppliers, the tenant was not a consumer under the Act, and the lease was not a consumer agreement.
- Even if section 14 were in play, the lease term exceeded the usual regulatory maximum of 24 months for fixed-term consumer agreements, reinforcing that the CPA framework did not fit the arrangement.
A private individual renting out their property, in circumstances like these, is not treated as acting in the ordinary course of business for CPA purposes.
For landlords and their property managers operating for letting to consumers leasing portfolios, the CPA is likely to apply. Where letting is part of your core operations, ongoing marketing of units, structured leasing processes, with standardised tenant engagement, the leases you conclude are typically “in the ordinary course of business.” That means CPA standards on fairness, disclosure, plain language, fixed-term rules, notice periods, and cancellation rights must be carefully built into your templates and processes.
For private individuals letting a single property on an ad hoc basis, this judgment confirms the prevailing interpretation that the CPA generally does not apply. The position may be different if the individual buys properties to let as income-producing assets. Still, clear drafting, fair terms, and compliance with other applicable laws (such as the Rental Housing Act and eviction procedures) remain essential.
There are different rights for tenants when the CPA applies. Landlords must carefully assess whether the CPA is applicable to ensure the lease is compliant.