Repeat Offender Landlord Hit With £7,884 RRO – 25 Leaside Avenue, N10 3BT

Introduction

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal considered an application for a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) in relation to Flat 2, 25 Leaside Avenue, N10 3BT, located within the London Borough of Haringey.

The Tribunal ultimately ordered the landlord to repay £7,884.84, plus £341 in application and hearing fees, after finding that the property had been operated as an unlicensed HMO within an additional licensing area.

What Happened?

The Applicant was a former tenant of Flat 2, a first-floor flat within a two-storey terraced property in Muswell Hill. She occupied the property from 26 May 2023 to 25 May 2024 under an assured shorthold tenancy.

During that period:

• The flat was occupied by three people forming two or more separate households.

• The property was located within Haringey’s Additional Licensing Scheme area.

• No HMO licence was in place.

The Applicant argued that the property met the definition of an HMO under section 254 of the Housing Act 2004 and should have been licensed.

She paid a total of £8,760.93 in rent during the relevant period.

In addition to the licensing breach, significant concerns were raised about the state of repair. This included a significant ceiling collpase into the flat below which made the The Application sufficiently concerned enough to not use this bathroom until it was resolved.

There was also substantial mould growth in the communal hallway which indicated dry rot, a lack of fire safety measures including no fire doors or smoke detectors, and exposed pipes. The sink in the kitchen was also blocked for the majority of the tenancy,

The Applicant also alleged the landlord failed to return her deposit and failed to provide prescribed safety documents such as gas safety certificates.

The landlord did not attend the hearing and did not respond to the allegations.

Repeat Offender: Second RRO for the Same Landlord

The Tribunal highlighted that the Respondent was the same landlord who had already been the subject of a separate Rent Repayment Order in 2025 concerning a property on Queens Avenue.

In that earlier case, the Tribunal identified similar licensing failings and made an RRO against the landlord. The fact that another unlicensed HMO offence arose at 25 Leaside Avenue suggests a pattern of non-compliance rather than a one-off oversight.

Repeat breaches of licensing requirements are taken seriously by the Tribunal. A history of previous offences can weigh heavily when assessing both credibility and the appropriate level of financial penalty.

For landlords, this case serves as a clear warning: failing to learn from earlier enforcement action can result in further orders and escalating consequences.

What Did the Tribunal Find?

The Tribunal was satisfied that:

• The property was located within Haringey’s Additional Licensing area.

• The property met the statutory definition of an HMO.

• A licence was required during the relevant period.

• No licence was in place.

Consequently, the landlord had committed the offence of controlling or managing an unlicensed licensable HMO. The Tribunal also noted the landlord’s previous RRO history.

Although the Applicant sought repayment of all the rent she paid, the Tribunal assessed the appropriate amount based on the evidence and circumstances.

What Was the Decision?

The Tribunal made a Rent Repayment Order requiring the landlord to pay:

• £7,884.84 in rent

• £341 in application and hearing fees

Both amounts were ordered to be paid within 28 days of the decision being issued.

The award did not constitute the full rent claimed but reflected the Tribunal’s judgment on what was appropriate in this case.

Final Thoughts

This case once again highlights the consequences of failing to licence property correctly where required:

• Operating an HMO without the required licence in an additional licensing area can lead to significant financial penalties.

• Tenants can recover rent through an RRO for up to 12 months where offences have occurred.

• Landlords with a history of licensing breaches face heightened scrutiny from Tribunals.

For tenants, the case demonstrates the power of RRO applications to reclaim rent paid where landlords fail to comply with licensing requirements.

For landlords, ensuring full compliance with local licensing schemes is essential to avoid repeat orders and escalating financial consequences.

Find Out What the Tenant Thought

The Applicant felt so strongly about their living situation at this property that they've also rated and reviewed the landlord on MOOT. Read the review of 25 Leaside Avenue, N10 3BT now - with additional photos included - and see just why the tribunal was in favour of The Applicant.