The law changed on 1 May 2026. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 raised the maximum Rent Repayment Order from 12 months’ rent to 2 years’ rent, and extended the deadline for applying from 12 months to 2 years from the date of the offence.
These new limits apply to offences committed on or after 1 May 2026. If your landlord’s offence was committed before that date, the previous rules still apply to you: a cap of 12 months’ rent, and 12 months to apply. Not sure which applies? Tell us the dates and we will work it out for you.
A real First-tier Tribunal decision, in full. A tenant of an unlicensed flat in Camden recovered £11,268 from three joint landlords — and the tribunal refused every argument they made for a reduction.
Decided under the old rules. The maximum award at the time was 12 months’ rent. For offences committed on or after 1 May 2026 the cap is 2 years’ rent, so the same facts today would be worth substantially more.
The parties
| Applicant | Ms S. A. Song (tenant) |
|---|---|
| Represented by | Mr K. Sharma of counsel, instructed by Legal Road Ltd |
| Respondents | Mr Daniel Rothberg, Mr Bruce Rothberg and Mr David Reuben Rothberg (joint landlords) |
| Represented by | Not represented |
| Tribunal | Judge S. J. Walker and Mr A. Lewicki FRICS |
The property
Flat 33, Hillside Court, 409 Finchley Road, London NW3 6HQ — one of 61 flats in a 1930s mansion block.
The issue
The London Borough of Camden had a designation in force under section 56 of the Housing Act 2004 from 8 December 2015, requiring properties occupied by three or more people forming two or more households to be licensed — including flats in purpose-built blocks. The landlords had no licence.
Timeline
| Offence period | 13 October 2019 to 12 October 2020 |
|---|---|
| Application | 23 October 2020 |
| Hearing | 2 June 2021 (remote video hearing) |
| Decision | 13 July 2021 |
The landlords’ case
The respondents accepted that an offence had been committed. Their argument was entirely about the amount. They said that:
- the rent included utilities and other services, whose cost should be deducted;
- they had acted in good faith;
- the tenant had caused them considerable problems and had breached her agreement.
They also argued that the power to make an RRO did not extend to their arrangement, which they said was not an assured shorthold tenancy.
What the tribunal found
It rejected all of it.
On deductions, the tribunal applied Vadamalayan v Stewart [2020] UKUT 0183 (LC) and Ficcara v James [2021] UKUT 38 (LC), and declined to reduce the award for utilities, services or the tenant’s conduct.
On good faith, it found the respondents had been aware that a licence might be needed as far back as May 2019 — months before the offence period began. That disposed of any reasonable excuse.
On jurisdiction, it confirmed that the RRO power applies to licensees as well as tenants: the statutory definition of “letting” includes licences, and “tenancy” is defined to include a licence. Being outside a standard AST is not an escape route.
The outcome
- A Rent Repayment Order of £11,268, payable jointly by all three landlords.
- Reimbursement of the £300 in tribunal fees.
- Payment within 28 days.
- No order for legal costs.
What the case shows
The starting point is the rent, not the profit
Vadamalayan settled that an RRO is calculated from the rent paid, not from what the landlord cleared after their outgoings. Mortgage payments, agent fees and running costs are not deductible. As the tribunal noted, a landlord is free to take the cost of utilities into account when setting the rent — but cannot claw it back afterwards as a deduction.
Contrast with the Hammersmith case
In our other case study the tribunal did allow 10% for utilities. The difference is factual: a deduction is available where the landlord was genuinely paying for utilities that benefited only the tenant, and it has to be evidenced. Asserting it is not enough.
Joint owners are assessed together
Where a property is jointly owned, the tribunal looks at the conduct of all the landlords, not just the one the tenant dealt with, and can make a joint order.
Tenant conduct is not a trump card
Section 44(4) requires tenant conduct to be considered, but it does not entitle a landlord to avoid an order for a clear breach of housing law. Here it produced no reduction at all.
Awareness destroys “reasonable excuse”
Evidence that the landlords knew in May 2019 that a licence might be required was decisive. If a landlord has ever been told — by a council, an agent or a solicitor — that a licence may be needed, that correspondence is likely to surface.
Note where this flat was. A self-contained flat in a purpose-built block, in a borough with an additional licensing designation covering exactly that. Tenants routinely assume licensing is only about scruffy shared houses. It is not. Send us the address and your dates and we will check. Check your claim →
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.
Think this applies to you? Checking whether your landlord needed a licence is free and takes about two minutes. See if you can reclaim your rent.