Rent Repayment Order Defence: RRO Offences, Statutory Defences and How Landlords Can Reduce an Award

Facing a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) does not automatically mean that you must repay your tenant’s rent. Depending on the offence alleged, a landlord may be able to defeat the application, establish a statutory defence or persuade the First-tier Tribunal to award substantially less than the amount claimed.

With the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 extending the potential financial exposure to 24 months’ rent for qualifying offences committed from 1 May 2026, defending an RRO application has become increasingly important.

Yet there is a distinction that landlords frequently overlook: defending liability and reducing the amount of an RRO are two different legal exercises.

Some cases turn on whether a criminal offence has actually been committed. Others involve a statutory defence, such as reasonable excuse. Where the offence cannot realistically be disputed, the focus may instead turn to presenting a persuasive, evidence-based mitigation case.

In this guide, Landlord Advice UK examines every category of offence capable of giving rise to an RRO, the defences potentially available, and the steps landlords can take to challenge or reduce an award.

Can You Defend a Rent Repayment Order?

Yes. An RRO application can be defended, although the available arguments depend on the offence alleged and the evidence.

There are three principal approaches:

1. Denying that the offence was committed. The applicant must establish the elements of a qualifying offence beyond reasonable doubt. Where the evidence does not satisfy that standard, the application may fail.

2. Establishing a statutory defence. Certain offences expressly provide defences, including reasonable excuse. A landlord may accept that the alleged circumstances occurred but contend that the legislation provides a complete defence.

3. Challenging the amount through mitigation. Where an offence is established and no complete defence succeeds, the Tribunal may still have discretion over the amount awarded. This is where a carefully prepared mitigation case can become particularly important.

These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A landlord may deny liability while presenting alternative submissions concerning the appropriate award should the Tribunal find against them.

The important point is that an RRO application should not be treated as an automatic entitlement to the maximum rent claimed.

What Offences Can Lead to a Rent Repayment Order?

The offences are identified in section 40(3) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, as amended by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.

There are 13 categories in the expanded statutory framework, although some of the newer offences are subject to separate commencement arrangements.

The fact that conduct appears in this table does not necessarily mean that an RRO can currently be made in respect of it. The relevant offence must have been in force at the material time, and the applicable transitional provisions must be satisfied.

1. Defending an RRO for an Unlicensed HMO

Section 72(1), Housing Act 2004

Unlicensed HMO allegations are among the most frequently encountered RRO claims.

An application may arise where a landlord is alleged to have controlled or managed a house in multiple occupation that required a mandatory or additional HMO licence.

However, the existence of multiple occupants does not, by itself, establish the offence.

Possible HMO licensing defences

A landlord may be able to dispute the allegation by establishing that:

• The property did not satisfy the relevant statutory definition of an HMO.
• The number of occupants or households did not meet the applicable licensing criteria.
• The local authority’s additional licensing designation did not cover the property during the relevant period.
• A duly made licence application or temporary exemption notice affected liability.
• The respondent was not a person having control of or managing the property within the statutory meaning.
• The alleged offence period has been incorrectly calculated.

The precise dates of occupation and licensing requirements can be critical.

For example, where the number of occupants changed during the tenancy, the property may not have required the same licence throughout the entire period alleged.

The reasonable excuse defence for an unlicensed HMO

Section 72(5) of the Housing Act 2004 provides a statutory reasonable excuse defence.

This can be particularly important where the landlord accepts that the property required a licence but contends that there was a legally sufficient explanation for the failure to obtain one.

Relevant evidence might include professional advice, exceptional circumstances or reasonable steps taken to establish the licensing position.

However, merely stating that the landlord was unaware of the licensing requirements is unlikely, without more, to establish a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal will assess the actual circumstances and the evidence supporting the explanation.

2. Defending an RRO for Selective Licensing

Section 95(1), Housing Act 2004

Selective licensing cases concern properties situated within designated areas where certain privately rented accommodation must be licensed.

A landlord may face an RRO even where the property was well maintained, the tenants experienced no disrepair and all rent payments were properly accounted for.

This is because the alleged offence concerns licensing compliance rather than necessarily the physical condition of the accommodation.

Potential selective licensing defences

The first task is to establish whether the property was subject to a valid selective licensing designation at the relevant time.

Questions may include:

• Was the property within the geographical boundaries of the scheme?
• Had the scheme commenced?
• Did any statutory exemption apply?
• Was an effective licence application already in place?
• Was the respondent legally responsible for the alleged offence?

Section 95(4) also provides a statutory reasonable excuse defence.

An RRO defence should therefore examine both whether the offence occurred and whether the landlord can rely on an applicable statutory defence.

A licensing breach and a failure to establish reasonable excuse do not automatically mean that the tenant should receive 100% of the rent. The appropriate award is a separate question, subject to the applicable statutory rules.

3. Defending an RRO for Unlawful Eviction or Harassment

Section 1, Protection from Eviction Act 1977

An RRO can arise where a landlord is alleged to have unlawfully deprived a residential occupier of occupation or engaged in conduct amounting to a relevant harassment offence.

Examples of allegations include changing locks, excluding occupiers, deliberately interfering with essential services or pressuring tenants to leave.

However, the Tribunal must consider the precise offence alleged.

How can a landlord defend an unlawful eviction RRO?

The defence may focus on whether the applicant has established the relevant criminal elements, including the occupier’s legal status, the conduct complained of and any necessary state of mind.

Depending on the subsection alleged, the legislation also contains specific defences or qualifications, including reasonable belief and reasonable grounds provisions.

Evidence may include communications concerning surrender, the circumstances in which possession was recovered, contemporaneous records and witness testimony.

A landlord should not assume that a tenant’s allegation of harassment is sufficient, without proof, to establish a criminal offence.

Equally, landlords must exercise considerable caution before taking possession without a court order where the occupier enjoys statutory protection.

4. Defending an RRO for Failure to Comply With an Improvement Notice

Section 30(1), Housing Act 2004

An improvement notice may require a landlord to undertake specified works within a prescribed period.

Where a qualifying notice is not complied with, the landlord may face enforcement action and potentially an RRO.

Possible defences

The landlord may dispute whether:

• The notice was validly served and operative.
• The required works had become due.
• The notice was complied with.
• The alleged failure occurred during the relevant period.
• The notice related to a qualifying hazard on the let premises for RRO purposes.

Section 30(4) provides a reasonable excuse defence.

For example, evidence that access was repeatedly refused may be relevant, depending on the steps taken by the landlord and the circumstances.

Simply alleging that the tenant was uncooperative will not necessarily be enough. The Tribunal will want to see evidence of what the landlord actually did to secure compliance.

5. Defending an RRO for Breach of a Prohibition Order

Section 32(1), Housing Act 2004

A prohibition order restricts particular uses or occupation of premises because of identified housing hazards.

An RRO may arise where a landlord is alleged to have contravened such an order.

A defence may involve disputing whether the order was operative, whether the relevant conduct breached its terms or whether a statutory defence applies.

Section 32(4) provides a reasonable excuse defence.

As with improvement notices, the statutory relationship between the order and the let premises must also be considered.

6. Defending an RRO for Violence Used to Secure Entry

Section 6(1), Criminal Law Act 1977

This offence concerns the use or threatened use of violence to secure entry to premises in the circumstances prohibited by the legislation.

An RRO defence will generally focus on whether the essential elements of the offence can be proved, including the conduct, purpose and relevant circumstances.

There is no general statutory reasonable excuse defence equivalent to the licensing provisions.

Consequently, the defence must be constructed around the actual statutory requirements and the evidence.

7. Defending an RRO for Breach of a Banning Order

Section 21, Housing and Planning Act 2016

A banning order can prohibit a person from undertaking specified letting or property management activities.

Where an RRO application follows an alleged breach, the Tribunal must consider the terms and operative period of the banning order and whether the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct.

A landlord may dispute the alleged breach, the applicability of the order or the identity of the person responsible.

Where the offence is established, the statutory provisions governing the amount of the RRO must be examined carefully, particularly any mandatory maximum-award requirements.

8. New RRO Offence: Misusing a Possession Ground

Section 16J(1), Housing Act 1988

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 introduces an offence aimed at the knowing or reckless misuse of possession grounds.

This is particularly significant where a tenant leaves after a landlord relies on a ground for possession that the landlord knows, or is reckless as to whether, could succeed.

For the relevant offence, the tenant must surrender the tenancy within four months of the ground being relied upon, without a possession order having been made.

Potential defence arguments

A landlord may dispute that:

• The possession ground was knowingly or recklessly misused.
• The ground was unavailable on the relevant facts.
• The tenant surrendered within the statutory four-month period.
• The alleged reliance on the ground caused the circumstances required by the offence.

Contemporaneous evidence of the landlord’s genuine intentions may be particularly important.

For example, where a landlord relied on an intention to sell, estate agent instructions, valuation evidence and communications preceding the notice may assist in establishing the landlord’s actual intentions.

A later change of circumstances does not, without more, necessarily establish that the original possession ground was knowingly or recklessly misused.

9. New RRO Offence: Unlawful Re-Letting or Marketing

Section 16J(2), Housing Act 1988

The legislation restricts letting and marketing activity following reliance on certain possession grounds, including grounds concerning occupation by the landlord or family and the intention to sell.

Breaching the applicable restrictions can constitute an offence.

A defence may concern the dates of the relevant activity, whether the statutory restriction applied, the identity of the person responsible and whether any specific exception or defence is available.

For certain contraventions involving persons other than landlords, section 16J(2) provides an express defence based on taking all reasonable steps to avoid the breach.

Landlords should retain records demonstrating why the relevant possession ground was relied upon and what happened to the property afterwards.

10. New RRO Offence: Continuing Tenancy Reform Breaches

Section 16J(3), Housing Act 1988

This offence concerns certain continuing breaches of tenancy reform requirements following qualifying financial penalty enforcement.

It is important to distinguish an initial regulatory breach from the further statutory conditions necessary to establish this criminal offence.

An initial failure to provide required tenancy information, for example, does not automatically establish an RRO offence under section 16J(3).

A defence may therefore involve examining the previous financial penalty, its legal status, the alleged continuing conduct and whether the relevant statutory conditions were met.

11. Continuing Breaches of Landlord Redress Scheme Requirements

Section 67(1), Renters’ Rights Act 2025 — subject to commencement

The legislation creates an offence relating to continuing non-compliance with landlord redress scheme requirements following the relevant statutory enforcement process.

A landlord may dispute the underlying requirements, the previous enforcement action or the alleged continuation of non-compliance.

The offence’s commencement and the precise statutory conditions must be checked before an RRO can be pursued on this basis.

12. False or Misleading Information on the PRS Database

Section 92(1), Renters’ Rights Act 2025 — subject to commencement

The new Private Rented Sector Database regime includes an offence concerning knowingly or recklessly providing materially false or misleading information.

Potential defence arguments may concern whether the information was materially inaccurate and whether the necessary knowledge or recklessness existed.

A genuine administrative mistake is not necessarily equivalent to knowingly or recklessly supplying false information.

However, the circumstances must be examined carefully, and the relevant offence must have commenced before it can found an RRO.

13. Continuing PRS Database Breaches

Section 92(2), Renters’ Rights Act 2025 — subject to commencement

This concerns qualifying continuing breaches of database requirements after the relevant enforcement process.

For RRO purposes, the legislation imposes particular restrictions concerning the underlying database obligation and previous financial penalty.

A landlord may challenge whether those conditions were satisfied or whether the alleged non-compliance continued.

Importantly, an initial failure to register on the database should not automatically be described as an offence entitling tenants to an RRO. The relevant statutory requirements must be established.

Which RRO Offences Have a Statutory Defence?

Not every offence provides the same legal defence.

The distinction is important because a landlord cannot simply rely on reasonable excuse as a universal answer to every RRO allegation.

This is a summary rather than an exhaustive catalogue of every statutory qualification or defence. The exact subsection and the law applicable at the date of the alleged offence must be considered. 

What Happens When the Landlord Has No Defence to the RRO Offence?

This is often where the most important work begins.

A landlord may accept that a property required a licence and that no application was made. The evidence may be insufficient to establish reasonable excuse, and the landlord may have no realistic basis for disputing the offence.

However, an inability to defend the offence does not necessarily mean an inability to defend the amount claimed.

Where the Tribunal retains discretion over the award, the landlord should consider preparing a comprehensive mitigation package.

The objective is to establish why, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the relevant statutory factors, the Tribunal should award less than the maximum amount sought.

This requires more than simply apologising or asserting that the landlord is a good person.

A convincing mitigation case should be supported by documentary evidence, a coherent chronology and legal submissions addressing the Tribunal’s statutory duties.

How to Reduce a Rent Repayment Order: Preparing a Compelling Mitigation Package

The amount of an RRO is governed by the relevant provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, including section 44 in tenant applications.

Where the Tribunal has discretion, the landlord’s conduct, the tenant’s conduct, the landlord’s financial circumstances and relevant previous convictions are particularly important.

The seriousness of the offence and other relevant circumstances may also influence the assessment.

1. Establish that the offence involved lower culpability

There can be a significant difference between a landlord who deliberately avoids licensing requirements for financial gain and one who fails to comply through a genuine, albeit legally insufficient, misunderstanding.

The Tribunal may consider the degree of culpability when assessing the seriousness of the offence.

Evidence of a genuine misunderstanding, prompt corrective action and the absence of deliberate concealment may be relevant.

However, a landlord should not confuse an unsuccessful reasonable excuse defence with an automatic entitlement to a reduced award.

2. Demonstrate a good record of property management

Where relevant, the landlord should gather evidence of how the property was managed throughout the period in question.

This might include:

• Gas safety records and electrical inspection reports.
• Fire safety documentation and risk assessments.
• Records of maintenance and repairs.
• Evidence of prompt responses to tenant complaints.
• Property inspection reports.
• Communications demonstrating responsible management.

The purpose is not to suggest that compliance with other legal duties cancels out the offence.

Rather, such evidence may help the Tribunal assess the overall seriousness of the landlord’s conduct.

3. Demonstrate prompt action to rectify the breach

Where the landlord became aware of the issue and took immediate corrective action, this should be evidenced.

For example, a landlord who promptly submitted a licence application, engaged with the council and implemented any necessary recommendations may be in a stronger mitigation position than one who continued to ignore the requirements.

A clear chronology can be particularly persuasive.

4. Address whether tenants suffered additional harm

The absence of injury, disrepair or other harm does not defeat a licensing offence.

However, the condition of the accommodation and the consequences of the offending may be relevant to the Tribunal’s assessment of seriousness.

Landlords should avoid arguing that an RRO is unjustified merely because the tenants enjoyed living at the property.

Licensing legislation serves wider public protection and regulatory purposes.

5. Provide evidence of financial circumstances

Section 44 expressly requires consideration of the landlord’s financial circumstances.

Depending on the case, supporting material may include mortgage statements, property accounts, evidence of liabilities, income records and other relevant financial documentation.

Bare assertions that the landlord cannot afford an RRO are unlikely to be persuasive.

The Tribunal may also distinguish between genuine financial hardship and the ordinary commercial expenses associated with operating a rental business.

6. Address the tenant’s conduct where genuinely relevant

The conduct of the tenant is another express statutory consideration.

However, the relevance of that conduct must be properly explained.

A landlord should not assume that rent arrears, complaints or disagreements with tenants will automatically justify a reduction.

Any argument must be legally relevant, evidenced and proportionate.

7. Demonstrate whether the landlord has a previous offending history

Where a landlord has no relevant convictions or previous enforcement history, this may form part of the overall submissions.

However, the absence of previous convictions should not be presented as an exceptional achievement.

Particular care is needed under the amended legislation, which contains provisions requiring maximum awards in specified circumstances involving convictions, financial penalties or repeat offending.

8. Prepare a structured witness statement and supporting bundle

A mitigation case should be organised in a way that allows the Tribunal to identify the relevant evidence.

A useful package may contain a landlord’s witness statement, chronology, licensing correspondence, safety documentation, management records, financial evidence and a concise skeleton argument addressing the statutory award provisions.

The strongest mitigation submissions connect each relevant fact to the legal basis on which the Tribunal can take it into account.

A mitigation package should not be a collection of positive character references. It requires substantive evidence relating to the conduct of the offender, and consideration of any statutory factors or authorities the Tribunal may be required to have regard to.

Can a Landlord Receive a Nominal Rent Repayment Order?

A landlord may seek a substantially reduced award where the statutory framework permits, but there is no general rule that a first-time or technical licensing breach warrants only a nominal payment.

RROs are intended to provide a meaningful sanction for qualifying offences.

Tribunals must apply the statutory framework and relevant appellate authorities when deciding the amount.

A request for a nominal award should therefore be supported by a legally sustainable argument rather than an assumption that an otherwise responsible landlord deserves only a token penalty.

In some cases, a realistic reduction from the maximum may be a more credible objective.

When Must the Tribunal Award the Maximum Rent?

A mitigation strategy must begin by identifying whether the Tribunal actually has discretion.

Under the amended RRO regime, particular convictions, qualifying financial penalties and repeat-offence circumstances may trigger mandatory maximum-award provisions.

Where those rules apply, ordinary mitigation may not permit the Tribunal to reduce the award.

It is therefore essential to examine the relevant offence, the date it was committed, the nature and status of any previous enforcement action and the applicable transitional provisions.

Landlords should not spend money preparing an extensive mitigation case without first understanding whether the statutory scheme permits a reduction.

How Much Can a Landlord Be Ordered to Repay?

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 increased the maximum qualifying rent period for offences committed on or after 1 May 2026.

For example, where a tenant pays £1,800 per month, a qualifying 24-month period could produce a starting figure of £43,200.

That does not necessarily mean the Tribunal will award £43,200.

The applicable offence period, rent calculation, statutory deductions and award provisions must all be considered.

For continuing offences spanning the commencement date, the transitional rules require particular attention.

Can a Superior Landlord or Company Director Defend an RRO?

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 expanded potential RRO liability beyond the immediate landlord.

This is especially important in rent-to-rent arrangements and corporate property structures.

However, liability is not automatic.

A superior landlord may dispute whether the relevant statutory requirements for liability are established, including whether they committed the qualifying offence.

Similarly, company directors and other relevant officers may face personal liability only where the statutory conditions are satisfied.

A director is not personally liable for an RRO simply because their name appears at Companies House.

Where corporate liability is alleged, the defence should consider the company’s legal responsibilities, the director’s actual involvement and the statutory requirements concerning consent, connivance or neglect.

Should a Landlord Settle an RRO or Defend It at the Tribunal?

Settlement can be commercially sensible, but it should be approached from an informed assessment of the likely outcome.

A tenant may demand 100% of the rent, or propose settlement at 70% or 80% of the claimed amount.

Such percentages are negotiating positions, not automatic measures of the amount the Tribunal would award.

Before making or accepting an offer, landlords should consider the strength of the offence allegation, the prospects of any statutory defence, the correct rent period, the likely award and the costs of continuing.

Where the offence is difficult to dispute but strong mitigation exists, a carefully reasoned settlement proposal may achieve a more proportionate outcome without the uncertainty of a contested hearing.

Conversely, where the applicant cannot prove an essential element of the offence, the landlord may have good reason to contest liability entirely.

Why Specialist RRO Defence Preparation Matters

Rent Repayment Order proceedings involve a combination of criminal offence provisions, civil tribunal procedure, housing regulation and statutory rules governing financial awards.

A defence which concentrates exclusively on denying wrongdoing may overlook valuable alternative arguments concerning the amount.

Equally, a landlord who immediately offers mitigation may fail to identify a complete defence to the underlying offence.

The correct approach is to examine the case in stages:

1. Identify the precise statutory offence alleged.

2. Assess whether the applicant can prove every necessary element.

3. Consider any applicable statutory defence.

4. Challenge the alleged offending period and rent calculation.

5. Determine whether the Tribunal has discretion over the award.

6. Prepare an evidence-based mitigation case where appropriate.

7. Evaluate settlement against the likely outcome of proceedings.

The objective is not simply to produce a lengthy defence. It is to identify and advance the arguments that can make a material difference to the outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions About RRO Defences

Can I defend a Rent Repayment Order if my property was unlicensed?

Yes. You may be able to dispute whether licensing was required, challenge the period of the alleged offence or establish a statutory reasonable excuse defence. Even where the offence is established, there may be arguments concerning the amount awarded.

Is not knowing about HMO licensing a reasonable excuse?

Not automatically. A lack of knowledge alone is generally insufficient. The Tribunal will consider the full circumstances and evidence of the steps taken to establish and comply with the relevant requirements.

Can the Tribunal reduce an RRO because I am a good landlord?

Evidence of responsible management may be relevant to the amount, but it does not provide a complete defence to a licensing offence. The Tribunal must apply the statutory factors and any mandatory-award provisions.

Can I defend an RRO without a solicitor?

A landlord may represent themselves before the First-tier Tribunal. However, the proceedings can involve complex statutory interpretation, criminal standards of proof, witness evidence and legal submissions concerning the amount.

Does a tenant need to prove disrepair to obtain an RRO?

No. For licensing offences, disrepair or physical harm is not an essential element of the offence.

Can a tenant obtain an RRO without the council prosecuting me?

Yes. The Tribunal can determine whether a qualifying offence was committed even where there has been no criminal prosecution or conviction.

Can I challenge an RRO after the Tribunal makes its decision?

An appeal may be possible where there is an arguable error of law. Permission to appeal is generally required, and strict deadlines apply.

Facing a Rent Repayment Order? Landlord Advice UK Can Help

Have you received a Rent Repayment Order application, or are you concerned that your tenants may bring one?

At Landlord Advice UK, we assist landlords, property investors, letting agents and property companies facing RRO proceedings.

We can assist with reviewing the allegations, assessing statutory defences, preparing statements of case and supporting evidence, developing mitigation arguments, negotiating settlement and preparing for First-tier Tribunal proceedings as well as providing representation at any hearings in the Tribunal.

Whether you are defending an allegation concerning an unlicensed HMO, selective licensing, unlawful eviction or one of the newer offences introduced by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, obtaining advice at an early stage can make a significant difference.

An RRO application is not the same as an RRO being proved. And even where an offence is established, the maximum rent claimed is not necessarily the amount that the Tribunal will award the applicant, if anything.

Contact Landlord Advice UK for specialist Rent Repayment Order defence assistance.

This article provides general information concerning Rent Repayment Orders in England as at October 2026. The applicable law, commencement provisions and available defences depend on the circumstances and dates of the alleged offence.

16 October 2026 | Sasha Charles of Landlord Advice UK