© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
The rent repayment order (RRO) has become increasingly commonplace. The classic RRO application occurs where a landlord has failed to license a property as a house in multiple occupation (HMO). In such cases, tenants are entitled to repayment of any rent paid whilst the premises are unlicensed. Applications based on unlicensed HMOs can be made by tenants, or local housing authorities, under s.43 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (“HPA 2016”).
Important new categories of RRO were introduced in 2016. In particular, RRO applications can now be made where premises are subject to selective licensing and the landlord has failed to obtain the requisite licence. RROs can also be obtained in certain other situations, for example, where there has been a breach of an improvement order or prohibition notice, violent entry under the Criminal Law Act 1977, an unlawful eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, or breach of a banning order.
There have been several appeal decisions concerning RROs, which demonstrate a recent shift in the approach taken by tribunals to RRO applications.
A shift in approach in the Upper Tribunal
An RRO does not necessarily have to be for the whole of the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord. But the Upper Tribunal has stressed that any departure from the gross rent should be based on one or more of three statutory considerations. In particular, a tribunal can make deductions to reflect the “conduct” of the landlord or tenant. Tribunals frequently deal with cross-allegations of misconduct by both tenants and landlords, seeking to influence the amount of any RRO.
In another Upper Tribunal case, the landlord’s leniency towards the tenant and a virtual failure by the tenant to pay rent during the tenancy led the Upper Tribunal to uphold a 75% deduction form the gross rent repayable under the RRO. This probably represents the upper end of the scale for permissible reductions in the amount of an RRO. Most cases will involve better behaviour by the tenant and worse behaviour by the landlord – resulting in an RRO rather closer to the starting point of the passing rent.
In another the Upper Tribunal case, it was acknowledged that the law did not adopt reasonableness as the appropriate yardstick for measuring the amount to be repaid under an RRO, but did not say that the sum repayable should be the same irrespective of the seriousness of the offence(s) committed by the landlord. So, for example, if more than one offence has been committed, this may properly be taken into account when considering what repayment to order. But 12 months’ rent is the maximum which a landlord can be ordered to repay on an application under the relevant law, irrespective of the number, timing or duration of the offences committed.
Recent Court of Appeal Decision
A recent Court of Appeal decision decided the issue of whether the RRO under the law can be made against a superior landlord as well as an immediate landlord.
Specific Advice
It is clear that there will be further guidance regarding the application of RRO’s will become available as more decisions are handed down by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in the future. It follows that it is important that anyone involved in this gets specialist advice.
*The full version of the article is available in the Landlord and Tenant Review.
Ibraheem Dulmeer and Mark Loveday are Barristers and Founders of Rent Repayment Law