Rent Repayment Order: Unlicensed HMO

Letting an unlicensed HMO is the most common basis for a Rent Repayment Order by a wide margin. This guide is about the legal mechanics of that ground — what has to be proved, what a landlord can say in response, and how the tribunal arrives at a figure.

The offence

Section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 makes it an offence for a person to have control of, or manage, an HMO which is required to be licensed and is not. It is a strict liability offence: there is no need to show the landlord intended anything, or knew about the requirement.

Because that offence appears in the section 40 table of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, a tenant can apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order that the landlord repay rent.

What you have to prove

Under section 43 the tribunal must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. In practice you are proving four things:

1. The property was an HMO — the number of occupiers, the number of households, and the sharing of amenities during your tenancy.
2. It required a licence — either mandatory licensing, or a local additional licensing designation that covered the address and the dates.
3. It had no licence — from the council’s public register, or a letter from the council confirming the position.
4. You paid rent in that period — bank statements, a rent book, or receipts.

The criminal standard sounds daunting but rarely is, because all four are documentary. Licensing claims succeed on paper.

Who to name as the respondent

Name the person or company who had control of or managed the property — normally your immediate landlord. Getting this wrong is one of the more common reasons a claim fails.

Two points worth knowing:

• Where a property is jointly owned, the tribunal assesses the landlords together. In the Rothberg case below, three joint landlords were ordered to pay jointly.
• Since 1 May 2026 an order can be made against a superior landlord as well as, or instead of, the immediate one — closing a gap that rent-to-rent operators previously exploited.

The defences

Section 72(4) — an application had been duly made

It is a defence that a licence application had been duly made, or that a temporary exemption notice was in force. The operative word is “duly”, and tribunals test it hard.

In the London State Ltd case, the landlord said it had applied online in January 2020. The council’s records showed the successful application arrived in September 2021 — after the tenancy. The tribunal found the evidence “inconsistent and often non credible”, rejected the defence, and made an order.

Section 72(5) — reasonable excuse

The landlord must establish it, and the bar is high. Not knowing about a designation is not normally enough. In the Rothberg case the tribunal found the landlords had been aware a licence might be needed as far back as May 2019, and refused to treat that as a reasonable excuse.

It was not an HMO, or did not need a licence

The strongest defence when it is available: the occupiers formed a single household, the property was genuinely self-contained, or no designation covered the address for those dates.

How much the tribunal awards

The maximum is 2 years’ rent for offences committed on or after 1 May 2026 (12 months for earlier offences). Getting the maximum is not automatic.

The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC) sets the approach:

1. take the whole rent for the relevant period;
2. deduct any element that was really the landlord paying for utilities that benefited only the tenant;
3. assess how serious this offence was, relative to other offences and to other examples of the same offence;
4. adjust for the section 44(4) factors — the conduct of both parties, any rent the tenant received for the period, the landlord’s financial circumstances, any conviction or financial penalty, and whether a rent repayment order has been made against them before.

Earlier authority matters too. Vadamalayan v Stewart [2020] UKUT 183 (LC) established that the starting point is the rent itself, not the landlord’s profit — so mortgage payments, letting agent fees and general running costs are not deductible. Ficcara v James [2021] UKUT 38 (LC) and Williams v Parmar [2021] UKUT 244 (LC) refined how the discretion is exercised.

Two worked outcomes

• £7,020 — two tenants, five-bedroom HMO in Hammersmith and Fulham, additional licensing. Rent of £866.67 a month, reduced by 10% for utilities included in the rent and a further 25% for the landlord’s lack of previous convictions and the small scale of the business. Full case study.
• £11,268 — a single tenant, flat in a mansion block in Camden, additional licensing. The tribunal refused to deduct anything for utilities, services or the tenant’s conduct, applying Vadamalayan and Ficcara. Full case study.

Both were decided under the old 12-month cap. The same facts today would be worth substantially more.

Practical points

• In both cases the tribunal also ordered the landlord to reimburse the £300 in fees the tenants had paid, with payment within 28 days.
• Neither tribunal awarded legal costs. Costs orders in the tribunal are unusual, which cuts both ways — it is why bringing a claim is low-risk.
• Each sharer claims their own rent. Four tenants in one house means four claims, not one award split four ways.

If you think this describes your tenancy, the licensing position is the thing to establish first. Send us the address and your dates and we will check it — free, and with no obligation.

This article is general information about the law in England and is not legal advice about your own circumstances. Case outcomes turn on their own facts. The rules differ in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.