VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant's Request for Rent Repayment Order Rejected by First-tier Tribunal

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal denied a person's request for a rent repayment order because the alleged offense happened too long ago. The decision was made by Judge Adrian Jack.

⚖️ Legal holding

a person cannot obtain a rent repayment order if the alleged offense occurred more than 12 months prior to the application.

📖 What the law says

Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.41

A tenant can apply for a rent repayment order only if the offense relates to housing that was let to the tenant at the time of the offense and the offense was committed within two years before the application.

Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.43

The First-tier Tribunal can make a rent repayment order if it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a landlord has committed an offense covered by this chapter, regardless of whether the landlord has been convicted.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal declined to make a rent repayment order due to lack of jurisdiction.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal rejected a tenant's application for a rent repayment order because the alleged offense occurred more than 12 months prior to the application. Judge Adrian Jack presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/OOAY/HMF/2025/0658 Property : 25B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : None Respondent : [redacted] : None Type of application : Application for a rent repayment order by tenant Sections 40, 41, 43, & 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 Tribunal : Judge Adrian Jack, Tribunal Member [NAME] of Decision : 15th August 2025

DECISION

1. By an application received by the Tribunal on 6th January 2025, the applicant tenant seeks a rent repayment order. The Tribunal gave directions on 5th March 2025. The applicant was extremely late in serving his bundle of documents, but the matter was nonetheless able to proceed to a hearing on 15th August 2025.

2. The applicant’s case is that he was [NAME] at 25B Calais St from 2013. On 1st December 2021, he says, the London Borough of Lambeth, where the

2 property is situated, introduced an additional licensing requirement for the whole of the borough, so that houses in multiple occupation with more than two occupants forming two or more separate households required a licence.

3. He gives the following history in the document at the last page of his bundle. On 1st December 2021, there were three occupants of the flat: himself, [NAME] and [NAME]. Ms [NAME] left the property on 1st March 2023. Ms [NAME] left on 1st May 2023. On 1st April 2023 [NAME] moved into the property and remained there until 1st December 2023. On 1st May 2023 [NAME] moved in and stayed until 1st February 2024. Thereafter the applicant occupied the property on his own until he moved out on 12th July 2024.

4. The respondent has adduced a witness statement dated 8th June 2025 from Ms [NAME] which says: “01 This statement is to confirm that I, [APPELLANT], am a former tenant of [APPELLANT]. I was resident at 25B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] from 10th June 2023 and I moved out on 19th February 2024. 02 For the last two months of my tenancy, 20th December 2023 to 19th February 2024, the only tenants in the property were myself and [NAME].” 5. It can be seen that there are issues as to the precise dates. Indeed the applicant candidly admitted to us that he was not certain about precise dates. However, it was common ground between the parties that in January and part of February 2024 the only occupiers of the property were the applicant and Ms [APPELLANT]. There was therefore in January 2024 and subsequently no licensing requirement.

6. In order for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order, section 41(2)(b) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 requires that “the offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made.” In the current case, by January 2024 any offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 had ended. The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order.

7. We should add that the respondent had a great many further points which he wished to make in defence of the application against him. In the light of our conclusion as to our jurisdiction, it is inappropriate for us to determine these issues and we do not do so.

8. The Tribunal has a discretion as to the fees payable to the Tribunal. In the light of our determination in our judgment the applicant should bear these costs.

3 DETERMINATION (1) The Tribunal declines to make a rent repayment order.

(2) No order for costs.

Name: Judge Adrian Jack Date: 15th August 2025

Appendix of Relevant Legislation Housing Act 2004 72 Offences in relation to licensing of HMOs (1) A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing an HMO which is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 61(1)) but is not so licensed. Housing and Planning Act 2016 40 Introduction and key definitions (1) This Chapter confers power on the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent repayment order where a landlord and committed an offence to which this Chapter applies. (2) A rent repayment order is an order requiring the landlord under a tenancy of housing in England to – (a) repay an amount of rent paid by [NAME], or (b) pay a local housing authority an amount in respect of a relevant award of universal credit paid (to any person) in respect of rent under the tenancy. (3) A reference to “an offence to which this Chapter applies” is to an offence, of a description specified in the table, that is committed by a landlord in relation to housing in England let to that landlord… [The tables of offences includes:] Housing Act 2004… section 72(1) control or management of unlicensed HMO 41 Application for rent repayment order (1) [NAME] or a local housing authority may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a rent repayment order against a person who has committed an offence to which this Chapter applies. (2) [NAME] may apply for a rent repayment order only if – (a) the offence relates to housing that, at the time of the offence, was let to the tenant, and (b) the offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made. 43 Making of a rent repayment order

4 (1) The First-tier Tribunal may make a rent repayment order if satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that a landlord has committed an offence to which this Chapter applies (whether or not the landlord had been convicted). (2) A rent repayment order under this section may be made only on an application under section 41.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The alleged offense occurred more than 12 months before the application.
  • The tenant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the landlord's offense within the last year.
  • The landlord did not commit an offense under the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
  • The tenant's claim arose from their own illegal actions.
  • The tenant did not comply with the tribunal's directions to present their case effectively.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal rejected the tenant's application for a rent repayment order.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the application was invalid because the alleged offense occurred more than 12 months prior to the application.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 2004 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the timing of the alleged offense relative to the application.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their application is made within 12 months of the alleged offense.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The dates of occupancy and the dates of the alleged offense were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

Yes, it is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.