On 6 May 2022 we reported on a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case involving an unlicensed HMO in the borough of Haringey in London. The property was a warehouse occupied by "property guardians". The FTT imposed a rent repayment order (RRO) of just over £31,000 and the landlord appealed against this amount.

The landlord's appeal (Hancher v David & Ors) has now been heard by the Upper Tier tribunal (UTT) and was based on the premise that the FTT erred in law in how it calculated the amount of the RRO. The UTT has reduced the amount of the RRO to £20,343.

The UTT said that "the FTT's reasoning started in the wrong place, and the FTT failed to give any consideration to the seriousness of the offence."

The UTT went on to say (at paragraph 19 of the decision) "The Tribunal has to consider the seriousness of the offence .... The offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 is not one of the more serious of the offences for which a rent repayment order can be made. And this is not one of the most serious examples of the section 72(1) offence [operating an unlicensed HMO]." Accordingly, the UTT reduced the RRO to 65% of the rent paid during the relevant period rather than the whole of the rent paid in that period.