Four tenants have won rent repayment orders totalling £23,177 after a tribunal rejected their landlord’s attempt to argue he was unaware of his legal duties around HMO licensing.

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that he had committed an offence under Section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 by operating an unlicensed HMO in Acton, west London. 

Under the local authority’s additional licensing scheme, the property required a licence for HMOs with three or more occupants forming two or more households.

The landlord claimed he had a “reasonable excuse” because he applied for a licence as soon as he realised one was needed. The tribunal dismissed this outright, stating that any ignorance of licensing law is not a defence, and that landlords are expected to understand and comply with statutory requirements before letting a property.

The tribunal highlighted that, before the tenancy even began, the landlord’s agent incorrectly told the tenants the property was licensed, despite no licence being in place. That false assurance weighed heavily in the tribunal’s assessment.

The case follows another recently reported decision in which an HMO landlord faced a £30,600 rent repayment order after arguing she “could have done more” to check licensing rules. Together, the rulings underline a toughening stance: tribunals expect landlords to verify licensing obligations and will not accept claims of oversight.

Factors that strengthened the case against the landlord

The tribunal acknowledged that the area’s additional licensing scheme had only been running for a few months when the tenancy started, but it still identified several aggravating issues:

• The property was in poor condition at the start of the tenancy, with no working oven or microwave and heating problems that took time to fix.

• Neither the landlord nor the agent accepted responsibility for these failings.

• Neither acknowledged that the false claim about the licence influenced the tenants’ decision to rent the property.

Given these factors, the tribunal ordered the landlord to repay 65% of the maximum possible amount, equivalent to nearly eight months’ rent across the four tenants.

Landlords operating HMOs in areas with additional licensing schemes face unlimited fines and rent repayment orders of up to 12 months’ rent if they fail to secure the correct licence. The case reinforces that tribunals expect landlords to be proactive, informed, and transparent about their legal duties.