Dealing with Local Authority Enforcement – Section 5.3

Upper Tribunal cases:

Calculating a RRO

Acheampong v Roman; Choudhury v Razak [2022] UKUT 239 (LC)

12 March 2020

This gives the clearest structured approach to calculating an RRO:

• establish the rent paid during the relevant period;
• deduct payments for utilities benefiting the tenant;
• assess the seriousness of the particular offence and select an appropriate proportion;
• adjust that amount in light of the statutory factors, including the parties’ conduct and the landlord’s financial circumstances.

The maximum rent is not the presumptive starting point. There is no “rate card”, and different licensing offences vary considerably in seriousness.

Read the case report.

A review of RRO principles

Newell v Abbott [2024] UKUT 181 (LC)

This is a useful review of the principles governing the amount of a rent repayment order, particularly where the offence is operating an unlicensed HMO.

The Upper Tribunal confirmed that there is no standard percentage or rigid “tariff”. The tribunal must assess the seriousness of the particular offence and then consider the statutory factors, including the conduct of the landlord and tenant and the landlord’s financial circumstances. Relevant matters may include the condition and management of the property, whether the licensing failure was deliberate and whether the landlord had previously been warned about licensing.

Although ignorance of the licensing requirement did not give the landlord a reasonable excuse, it could still be relevant when assessing culpability and the amount of the order. On the facts, the Upper Tribunal reduced the award from 80% to 60% of the relevant rent.

The decision provides a helpful synthesis of the earlier cases on seriousness and quantum, but it does not establish fixed percentage bands.

Dealing with the dates

Moh v Rimal Properties Ltd; Kiely v Bostall Estates Ltd [2024] UKUT 324 (LC)

These joined appeals concerned the deadline for making a rent repayment order application and the date on which a landlord’s defence to an HMO licensing offence takes effect.

Under the legislation then applicable, an offence had to have been committed within “the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made”. The Upper Tribunal held that this period did not include the corresponding date in the previous year. For example, a 12-month period ending on 4 May began on 5 May of the preceding year.

The Tribunal also held that where a licence application is duly made during a particular day, the statutory defence applies for the whole of that day. The same approach was taken to a reasonable-excuse defence arising during a day. Fractions of a day are disregarded and, where there is ambiguity affecting criminal liability, the interpretation favourable to the alleged offender should be adopted.

The statutory application period has since been extended from 12 months to two years. However, the decision remains important when calculating the relevant period and identifying the last day on which an offence was committed. Applicants should not leave an application until the apparent final day.

Read the Upper Tribunal decision

Allowable rent

Pearton v Betterton Duplex Ltd [2025] UKUT 175 (LC)

The tenants paid six months’ rent in advance before their tenancy and occupation began. The property did not become an HMO until it was occupied, so the licensing offence had not begun when the rent was paid.

The Upper Tribunal held that an RRO could cover only rent which was both:

• paid in respect of the period during which the offence was committed; and
• actually paid during that period.

It was not enough that the advance payment related to the later period of occupation. As all the rent had been paid before the offence began, no RRO could be made. This followed the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Kowalek v Hassanein Ltd, which concerned rent paid after an offence had ended.

This is principally an old-law and transitional decision because its facts involved six months’ rent being required in advance before the 2026 restrictions on advance rent took effect. Nevertheless, its interpretation of the RRO legislation may remain relevant whenever payment is made outside the period during which the offence is being committed.

Read the Upper Tribunal decision

When the landlord ‘should have known’ about the licensing requirement/allowable deductions

LDC (Ferry Lane) GP3 Ltd v Garro and others [2024] UKUT 40 (LC)

The landlord was part of a large professional provider of purpose-built student accommodation. It failed to obtain additional HMO licences and argued that it had a reasonable excuse because the local authority had not consulted or notified it personally about the licensing designation.

The Upper Tribunal rejected the defence. The authority had complied with the statutory publicity requirements and the landlord was not entitled to assume that the authority would contact it individually. As a substantial professional landlord with staff responsible for licensing, it could reasonably have been expected to investigate the licensing requirements affecting its properties.

The case does not establish that ignorance of a licensing scheme can never amount to a reasonable excuse. That remains a fact-sensitive question. However, the experience, scale and resources of a professional landlord are relevant when deciding what it was reasonable to expect the landlord to know and do.

The decision also confirms that genuinely identifiable utility costs paid by the landlord and included in the rent may be deducted before calculating the RRO, but general expenditure on providing and maintaining the accommodation is not deducted in the same way.

Read the Upper Tribunal decision