Blog article by Michael Field
Rent Repayment Orders (RROs) under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 continue to generate significant litigation, but decisions such as 12 Doric House, Mace Street, E2 demonstrate that outcomes turn on evidence rather than assumptions about HMO licensing and compliance.
In this case, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) refused an application for a Rent Repayment Order, despite accepting that the property was subject to an additional licensing scheme, required an HMO licence, and that no licence was in place during the period of the claim.
The landlord was represented before the tribunal by Michael Field, barrister,
The background: an alleged unlicensed HMO
Three former tenants applied for a Rent Repayment Order under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, alleging that the landlord had committed an offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 by managing or being in control of an unlicensed HMO.
The property was a four-bedroom maisonette in Tower Hamlets, falling within the borough’s additional HMO licensing scheme. The applicants sought to recover rent paid over a twelve-month period, amounting to just under £23,000.
The legal test: proof of an offence
As the tribunal emphasised, a Rent Repayment Order is not a discretionary remedy. It depends on proof—beyond reasonable doubt—that a landlord committed a relevant housing offence. On the landlord’s behalf, Michael Field argued that no offence under section 72 of the Housing Act 2004 was committed during the relevant period because a licence application had been duly made in early 2023. Documentary evidence was relied upon, including contemporaneous email correspondence with the local authority and a council reference number consistent with a valid HMO licence application.
Why the application for a Rent Repayment Order failed
The tribunal accepted that an application for an HMO licence had been duly made. Under section 72(4) of the Housing Act 2004, once an effective licence application has been submitted, the offence of managing an unlicensed HMO is no longer committed. As a result, the tribunal found that the tenants failed to prove an offence during the relevant period claimed. The Rent Repayment Order was refused
Practical lessons for landlords
The decision illustrates several important reminders for Rent Repayment Order cases:
- Rent Repayment Order claims are quasi-criminal and evidence-driven
- A properly evidenced HMO licence application can defeat an application for a Rent Repayment Order, even if that application had not been processed yet
- Documentary records can be decisive in Rent Repayment Order defences
Although fact-specific, the case highlights the importance of section 72(4) of the Housing Act 2004 as a defence in HMO licensing cases.
Expert advice is the best way to find out whether an action you have taken plan to take might amount to an offence, and what the consequences of that might be. Freemans solicitors are a leading provider of Rent Repayment Order and HMO advice and our experienced team will be happy to help with your enquiry. We can advise on whether a property counts as a converted block of flats HMO and what steps you might be able to take to change this.
Contact Michael Field, Karol Hart or Julian Hunt in our Crime Team on 020 7935 3522 or crimelawyers@freemanssolicitors.net or in an emergency please call our 24/7 number 07973 259382 and let us help. We can advise on investigations, diversion from prosecution, prosecutions of HMO Offences and ancillary matters such a Rent Repayment Orders.
Whatever your personal circumstances the above is only a guide, and we would advise you to contact us to obtain definitive advice as you will appreciate that each person’s circumstances are unique to them.