Unlicensed HMO Leads to Rent Repayment Order in London Docklands

Introduction

In a decision dated 31 July 2025, the First‑Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber, Residential Property) delivered its judgment in an RRO case involving a flat at 80 Midship Point, The Quarterdeck, London E14 8SP. The Tribunal considered the tenant's claim that the landlord had managed an unlicensed HMO, fulfilling the criteria for a Rent Repayment Order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016

What Happened?

Applicant (Tenant): Mr Sam William Matthews

Representative for Applicant: Mr Brian Leacock, Justice for Tenants

Respondents (Landlords): Haijul Islam and Mr Fakhrul Islam, unrepresented

Property details: A four-bedroom flat with shared kitchen and bathroom, located on the twentieth floor of a purpose-built block of flats

Tenancy: Began on 1 April 2021 under a formal tenancy agreement 

Related eviction case: A County Court judgment dated 30 October 2024 established that the tenant had been unlawfully evicted on 8 December 2023, entitling him to damages amounting to £19,907.04 

Legal basis for RRO: The application was made under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, claiming that managing an unlicensed HMO constituted an offence under section 40(3) of the 2016 Act. The tenancy period at issue was approximately from 9 December 2022 to 8 December 2023.

What Did the Tribunal Find?

While the Tribunal’s full reasoning is summarised across the decision, its conclusions were clear:

• The property constituted an HMO requiring a licence.

• At no point during the relevant period (c. 9 December 2022 – 8 December 2023) was the property licensed.

• The Respondents were found to have committed the offence of managing an unlicensed HMO under section 40(3) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

As a consequence, a Rent Repayment Order was warranted

What Was the Final Decision?

The Tribunal issued a Rent Repayment Order of £5,004, to be paid by the Respondents to the Applicant. Additionally, the Respondents were ordered to reimburse £330 for the Tribunal fees paid by the Applicant.

Final Thoughts

This case underscores several critical points in landlord‑tenant law:

Licensing compliance is non‑negotiable. Even a short period of managing an unlicensed HMO can attract strict financial penalties.

RROs offer meaningful tenant redress. The decision reinforces that tenants may seek help through RROs if landlords breach licensing obligations—regardless of eviction disputes or other civil matters.

Prompt legal recourse matters. The tenant’s timely application resulted in a clear monetary remedy, separate from the County Court’s damages for eviction.

For those interested in the detailed tribunal decision, the full document is available here: 80 Midship Point, The Quarterdeck, London. E14 8SP.