How Much Can a Tenant Claim in a Rent Repayment Order?

How Much Can a Tenant Claim in a Rent Repayment Order?

A rent repayment order can require a landlord to repay up to two years of rent for qualifying offences committed on or after 1 May 2026. Section 103 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 doubled the previous 12 month cap. The First-tier Tribunal decides the actual amount, which is frequently below the maximum.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Landlords should seek independent legal advice for their specific circumstances. It describes the position in England.

What is the maximum a tenant can claim?

The maximum is two years of rent, but only for qualifying offences committed on or after 1 May 2026. Section 103(5)(a)(iv) of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 substituted "2 years" for "12 months" in section 44(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which governs orders made in favour of a tenant. Section 103(6) made the equivalent change to section 45(2), which governs orders made in favour of a local housing authority recovering housing benefit or the housing costs element of universal credit.

The change is not retrospective. Regulation 11 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/421, provides that the amendments apply only to offences committed by a landlord or superior landlord on or after 1 May 2026. Shelter's legal guidance states that where an offence spans the change, the tribunal applies the old rules to the period before 1 May 2026 and the new rules to the period after it.

A rent repayment order, meaning an order of the First-tier Tribunal requiring a landlord to repay rent under Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, does not require a criminal conviction. Section 43(1) requires the tribunal to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed, which is the criminal standard of proof applied in a civil forum.

How is the two year period actually measured?

There are two different measurement bases, and which one applies depends on the offence. This distinction matters more than the headline figure, because for several common offences the practical maximum is well under two years.

For the largest single category of rent repayment order applications, unlicensed HMOs, the ceiling is the rent paid while the property was unlicensed. A landlord whose licence lapsed for four months faces a four month ceiling. The doubling of the cap changes the exposure for long running failures, not for short ones.

Which offences qualify?

The qualifying offences are listed in the table at section 40(3) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The Renters' Rights Act 2025 expanded that table from seven rows to thirteen, though not all of the new rows are yet operative.

The final three rows are inserted by section 98(2)(d) of the Renters' Rights Act 2025. That subsection was not among the provisions commenced on 1 May 2026 by regulation 3(h)(i) of SI 2026/421, which reflects the fact that the landlord redress scheme and the PRS Database are Phase 2 measures expected from late 2026. Commencement dates have moved before, and landlords are advised to check the current position rather than rely on a published list.

How does the tribunal decide the actual figure?

The tribunal starts at the maximum and works down, and a full award is reserved for the most serious cases. The leading authority is Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC), in which the Upper Tribunal set out an approach of determining the whole of the rent for the relevant period, deducting any element that represents utilities benefiting only the tenant, assessing how serious this offence was compared with other examples of the same offence, and then adjusting for the statutory factors.

Section 44(4) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 requires the tribunal to take into account the conduct of the landlord and the tenant, the financial circumstances of the landlord, and whether the landlord has been convicted of a relevant offence. The Renters' Rights Act 2025 added two further considerations: whether the landlord has received a financial penalty in respect of the offence, and whether the landlord has at any time had a rent repayment order made against them.

Several practical points follow from the reported cases. Deposit money lawfully held as security is not rent and is excluded, following Kowalek v Hassanein Ltd [2021] UKUT 143 (LC). Where only some joint tenants apply, the award is generally limited to the applicants' share of the rent, as in Dowd v Martins [2022] UKUT 249 (LC). The Upper Tribunal has also indicated in Hancher v David [2022] UKUT 277 (LC) that failing to obtain an HMO licence is not among the most serious of the qualifying offences, which supports a reduced award. Outcomes turn on the specific facts and these authorities do not produce a fixed tariff.

When must the tribunal award the maximum?

The tribunal has no discretion where section 46 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 applies, and the Renters' Rights Act 2025 significantly widened that section. Section 98(7) replaced the previous condition so that the maximum is now mandatory where the landlord has been convicted of the offence, has received a financial penalty for it, or has previously been convicted of, penalised for, or made subject to a rent repayment order for another offence which is the same offence.

The phrase "another offence" is not limited to the same property or the same tenancy. A landlord penalised for an unlicensed HMO in one local authority area can therefore face a mandatory maximum award in a later application concerning a different property. Section 46(4A) provides that an offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 is to be treated as the same offence as one under section 95(1), and the reverse, so a mandatory HMO licensing failure and a selective licensing failure count as the same offence for this purpose.

Who can be ordered to pay?

Liability now extends beyond the immediate landlord. Section 103(2) of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 rewrote section 40(1) and (2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 so that an order can be made where the offence was committed by a landlord under a tenancy or by any superior landlord in relation to that tenancy. This reverses the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Rakusen v Jepsen [2023] UKSC 9, which had held that an order could only be made against the immediate landlord.

Section 104 inserted section 51A into the 2016 Act, allowing an order to be made against a company director, manager, secretary or other officer where the offence was committed with their consent or connivance, or was attributable to their neglect. Where an order is made against more than one landlord, the new section 46A requires the tribunal to provide for joint and several liability, and prevents a second order requiring payment for a period already covered by an earlier order.

What are the time limits?

An application must be made within two years of the offence, extended from 12 months by section 98(3)(a). Where a local housing authority intends to apply, section 42 requires it first to serve a notice of intended proceedings giving the landlord at least 28 days to respond, and that notice cannot be served more than two years after the offence.

For continuing offences that have ended, the last date on which the offence was committed must fall within the two year window. In Moh v Rimal Properties Ltd [2024] UKUT 324 (LC), decided under the previous 12 month rule, an application made one day outside the window failed. Applications are made to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) using Form RRO1.

What this means for record keeping

The evidential burden in a rent repayment order application sits largely with the applicant, but the landlord's ability to reduce an award depends on records they may not have kept. Three categories matter in practice: the exact dates a licence was applied for, granted or expired, since these define the offence period and therefore the ceiling; the composition of the rent, since utility elements can be deducted; and the conduct history, since a landlord arguing for a reduction needs to be able to evidence prompt remedial action.

That last point interacts with the mandatory maximum. Because a previous civil penalty now triggers the mandatory award under section 46, a landlord's enforcement history has become directly financial. Landlords with portfolios spread across several authorities are advised to keep a consolidated record rather than relying on correspondence held separately for each property.

Rent repayment order applications frequently turn on what a landlord can prove was in place on a specific date. LLCR keeps certificates, licence dates and compliance actions in a single timestamped record, and its Compliance Defence Pack assembles that history into a structured bundle.