VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Grants £1205.67 Rent Repayment Order for Unlicensed HMO in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled in favour of tenants who lived in a house in multiple occupation (HMO) without a proper license. The tenants successfully argued that they should receive a refund of their rent because the landlord did not have the necessary license.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent repayment order if the landlord fails to obtain a mandatory license for a house in multiple occupation.

Topics

rent repayment orderslicensing requirements

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted a rent repayment order due to the failure to license the property as a house in multiple occupation.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a rent repayment order to tenants after the landlord failed to obtain a mandatory license for the property used as a house in multiple occupation. The order required the landlord to pay back rent to the tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/OOAZ/HMG/2020/0020

Property : [ADDRESS]23 327 Applicant: [redacted]

[NAME], [COUNSEL] [NAME] :

Ms [COUNSEL] Respondent: [redacted]

Ms [NAME] :

Ms [COUNSEL] of Application :

Application for a Rent Repayment Order Tribunal Member :

Judge Jim Shepherd Melvyn Cairns: MCIEH

Date of Decision : 7th July 2021

DECISION

1. In this case the applicants, [NAME], and [NAME] are seeking a rent repayment order against their former landlord [RESPONDENT] [NAME]. The application was originally made on two bases namely harassment and failure to obtain a licence for a house in multiple occupation. In the event the first limb of the application was abandoned and the sole cause of action related to the failure to license the premises.

2. To her credit [NAME] conceded the application both in relation to liability and in relation to the sums sought.

Accordingly, when the case was heard by the Tribunal on 7 July 2021 the parties were aligned in relation to the relief sought. The sum sought by the applicants was £1205.67 each. This related to the rental value of the premises during their occupation minus any credits already given by the respondent.

3. The tribunal has no doubt from seeing [RESPONDENT] that she has learnt the error of her ways and will not again seek to let the premises to multiple households without a licence.

4. The tribunal makes an order for the payment of £1205.67 to each applicant, a total of 3617.01. This sum to be paid within 28 days.

[NAME]   7th July 2021

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions

1. A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.

3. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers 5. Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.

📊 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 accepted

  • The applicants sought a rent repayment order because the landlord failed to obtain a mandatory license for a house in multiple occupation.
  • The landlord conceded the application regarding both liability and the sums requested.
  • The tribunal was satisfied that the landlord understood her mistake and would not repeat it.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The applicants abandoned their claim for harassment, focusing solely on the licensing issue.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal granted a rent repayment order for £1205.67 to each applicant.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the landlord's failure to obtain a mandatory HMO licence for the property.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the applicants because the landlord failed to comply with the requirement to obtain a mandatory HMO licence.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the landlord's failure to obtain a mandatory HMO licence.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be entitled to a rent repayment order if their landlord fails to obtain a mandatory HMO licence.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.

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.