How Landlords Can Dispute an RRO

If you are a tenant applying for a Rent Repayment Order, it helps enormously to know how the other side will run its case. This guide sets out the defences a landlord can properly raise in England, the ones that rarely work, and what happens if they appeal.

First, what the tribunal actually has to decide

A Rent Repayment Order is made by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under Chapter 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. It is not a rent review, and it has nothing to do with capping or registering rents. It is an order that a landlord repay rent because they committed one of the housing offences listed in section 40 of that Act.

Two features of the scheme shape every dispute:

• The landlord does not need to have been convicted. Under section 43, the tribunal may make an order if it is satisfied that the landlord committed a listed offence, “whether or not the landlord has been convicted”.
• The criminal standard of proof applies. The tribunal must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed. This is the single most important fact in any RRO dispute, and it is the foundation of most landlord defences: the landlord does not have to prove innocence, only raise a reasonable doubt.

The offences an RRO can be based on

Section 40 lists the qualifying offences. The main ones are below, and in practice the great majority of tenant applications concern the first two:

• Control of, or managing, an unlicensed HMO — section 72(1), Housing Act 2004
• Control of, or managing, an unlicensed house under selective licensing — section 95(1), Housing Act 2004
• Illegal eviction or harassment of an occupier — section 1(2), (3) or (3A), Protection from Eviction Act 1977
• Violence to secure entry to a property — section 6(1), Criminal Law Act 1977
• Failure to comply with an improvement notice or a prohibition order — sections 30 and 32, Housing Act 2004
• Breach of a banning order — section 21, Housing and Planning Act 2016

If the conduct complained of is not one of these offences, there is no jurisdiction to make an order — and pointing that out is the cleanest defence a landlord has.

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 added three further offences to this list from 1 May 2026, concerning the misuse of possession grounds and breaches of the restrictions on re-letting a property after eviction. We act on the licensing offences — rows 5 and 6 above — which account for the overwhelming majority of tenant claims.

The defences that actually work

1. The property did not need a licence

This is the most common and most effective line of defence, because it goes to the heart of the offence rather than to mitigation. A landlord may argue that:

• the property was not an HMO as defined — for example the occupiers formed a single household, or the property fell outside the statutory tests;
• the local authority’s additional or selective licensing designation did not cover this address, or had expired or not yet come into force for the period claimed;
• the property fell within one of the statutory exemptions.

Licensing designations are made borough by borough and change over time, so the period claimed matters as much as the address.

2. A licence application had already been made

Section 72(4) of the Housing Act 2004 provides a specific statutory defence: it is a defence that, at the material time, a notification had been duly given under section 62(1), or an application for a licence had been duly made under section 63. A landlord who applied for a licence — even if it had not yet been granted — may be covered for that period.

The word doing the work is duly. An incomplete application, or one submitted after the tenancy ended, will not usually assist.

3. Reasonable excuse

Section 72(5) of the Housing Act 2004 provides a defence of reasonable excuse for the licensing offences. The burden here sits on the landlord to establish the excuse, and tribunals set the bar high. Ignorance of the licensing scheme is, on its own, rarely enough — landlords are expected to know the rules that apply to their own property.

Excuses that have been argued with varying success include serious illness at the material time, being genuinely misled by information published by the local authority, and a very short overrun caused by circumstances outside the landlord’s control.

4. “I am not the landlord”

A respondent may argue that they were not the person having control of, or managing, the property — for example that an agent, a company, or an intermediate rent-to-rent operator was the correct respondent. Naming the wrong respondent is one of the more common reasons a tenant application fails, which is why identifying the immediate landlord accurately at the outset matters so much.

Note that the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 widened this: the tribunal can now make an order against a superior landlord as well as, or instead of, the immediate landlord. That closes off a defence that used to succeed in rent-to-rent arrangements.

5. Reducing the amount rather than defeating the claim

Where the offence is made out, the argument usually shifts from liability to quantum. Under section 44 the tribunal must take into account:

• the conduct of the landlord and the tenant;
• the amount of any rent received by the tenant in respect of the period;
• the landlord’s financial circumstances;
• whether the landlord has been convicted of, or received a financial penalty for, a listed offence; and
• whether a rent repayment order has previously been made against them.

The last two of those were added by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and both make life harder for a landlord with any history.

So a landlord will typically point to rent arrears, damage to the property, anti-social behaviour, a well-maintained and safe property, prompt regularisation once the problem came to light, and genuine hardship. A tenant will point the other way: disrepair, harassment, previous enforcement action, or a landlord with a portfolio who plainly knew the rules.

Rent paid through housing benefit or universal credit is excluded from what you personally can recover — that element is recoverable by the local authority instead.

Arguments that rarely succeed

• “The tenant owes me rent.” Arrears are relevant to the amount, but they are not a defence to the offence.
• “The property was in good condition.” Condition is relevant to quantum. The licensing offence is committed whether or not the house was well kept.
• “My agent was supposed to handle it.” This may go to reasonable excuse, but responsibility for licensing rests with the person having control of or managing the property.
• “The tenant has moved out.” Former tenants can and regularly do apply.
• Retaliatory eviction. A landlord has no right to evict a tenant for applying for an RRO, and attempting it may itself be a listed offence that increases the award.

How much is at stake — and by when

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 changed both figures with effect from 1 May 2026:

Where the landlord has been convicted of the offence, or has received a financial penalty for it, section 46 requires the tribunal to order the maximum amount — the discretion to reduce it falls away.

Appealing an order

A landlord who loses cannot simply re-argue the facts. The route is:

1. Apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal, in writing, normally within 28 days of the date the tribunal sent out its written reasons.
2. If permission is refused, apply directly to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), normally within 14 days of being refused.
3. An appeal generally has to identify an error of law — that the tribunal applied the wrong test, gave inadequate reasons, or reached a conclusion not open to it on the evidence. Disagreeing with the tribunal’s view of the evidence is not, by itself, a ground of appeal.

Where an order stands, the tribunal will normally set a date for payment — commonly 28 days — and may allow payment by instalments if the landlord’s finances justify it. An unpaid order is a debt that can be enforced through the County Court.

What this means if you are the tenant

None of the above should put you off. Most defences fail on the documents, and the ones that succeed usually do so because the application was put together loosely — wrong respondent, wrong dates, or thin evidence of payment. That is precisely the part we handle.

• Identify the correct respondent before you file, not after.
• Pin down the exact dates you lived there and the licensing position for that period.
• Evidence every payment you are claiming for.
• Keep anything that speaks to the landlord’s conduct — it affects the award.

If you would like us to look at it, tell us the dates and the address and we will check the licensing position for you. There is no cost for that, and no obligation.

This article is general information about the law in England and is not legal advice about your own circumstances. The law summarised here is the Housing Act 2004, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 as they stood at the date of publication. Rent Repayment Orders do not apply in the same way in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.