Case Study: A £7,020 Rent Repayment Order

A real First-tier Tribunal decision, in full. Two tenants of an unlicensed five-bedroom HMO in Hammersmith and Fulham recovered £7,020 after the tribunal rejected their landlord’s claim to have applied for a licence.

The parties

The property

A five-bedroom HMO at 273 Fulham Palace Road, London SW6 6TL, with a shared kitchen and two shared bathrooms.

The issue

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham operated an additional licensing scheme requiring properties occupied by three or more people forming two or more households to be licensed. The property met that description. London State Ltd had no licence.

The tenants applied under sections 43 and 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, relying on the offence of managing an unlicensed HMO contrary to section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, and sought 12 months’ rent.

Timeline

The landlord’s defence

London State Ltd advanced two arguments:

1. A section 72(4)(b) defence — that it had made an online licence application on 10 January 2020, before the offence period, which would have provided a complete defence.
2. A 25% reduction in any award, on the basis that the rent covered utilities and some cleaning, so the full rent should not be the starting point.

It accepted that it was the sole landlord and responsible for collecting the rent.

What the tribunal found

On the licence application, the tribunal preferred the local authority’s evidence: the successful application had only been received on 29 September 2021 — after the offence period had ended. It described the landlord’s evidence that an application had been made in January 2020 as inconsistent and often not credible, and rejected it.

It found no reasonable excuse, and concluded that the landlord was in breach of section 72(1).

How the award was calculated

The tribunal worked through the figures as follows:

• Rent of £866.67 per month × 12 months
• × 90% — a 10% reduction to reflect utilities included in the rent
• = £9,360
• less a further 25%, reflecting the landlord’s lack of previous convictions and the small scale of the business
• = £7,020

The outcome

• A Rent Repayment Order of £7,020.
• Reimbursement of the £300 in tribunal fees the tenants had paid.
• Payment within 28 days.
• No order for legal costs.

What the case shows

Saying you applied is not enough

The section 72(4) defence requires proof that an application was duly made, and made before the offence. The tribunal wanted documentary evidence and a witness who could be cross-examined on it. An assertion in a statement did not survive contact with the council’s records.

Landlords must be able to evidence compliance

The burden of establishing a statutory defence sits with the landlord. Keeping dated proof of a licence application — the submission, the reference number, the fee payment — is what that defence stands on.

The maximum is not the default

The tenants sought 12 months’ rent and received about 68% of it. Utilities came off under what is now step 2 of the Acheampong approach, and the landlord’s clean record and small scale reduced it further under the section 44(4) factors. Good conduct genuinely does count in a landlord’s favour.

Fees come back; legal costs do not

The tribunal reimbursed the £300 application and hearing fees but declined legal costs — which is the norm in RRO cases, and the reason a no win no fee provider’s share comes out of the award rather than from the landlord.

This case study summarises a published First-tier Tribunal decision. It is general information about the law in England, not legal advice, and every case turns on its own facts. The award limits described applied at the time of the decision and have since changed.