A recent decision of the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) (FtT) is a sharp reminder that a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) application is legal proceedings. It has consequences for the tenants who sign it.
In 19 Alderney Road, London E1 4EG (LON/00BG/HMF/2025/0807, 10 July 2026), six tenants were represented by Justice for Tenants (JfT). They claimed a full year’s rent, about £60,000, against their former landlord. They later withdrew the claim. They have now been ordered to pay the landlord’s costs of £3,240, jointly and severally, because the house had been licensed for the whole of their tenancy.
Costs orders against tenants in RRO cases are rare. The FtT is normally a “no costs” tribunal, and each side bears its own costs. However, rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 allows the Tribunal to award costs “if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings“. That is what the Tribunal found happened here.
What happened
The six tenants rented an HMO in Tower Hamlets from September 2022 to September 2024. It is common ground that there was no gap in licensing. The first HMO licence ran from 6 August 2021 to 5 August 2024, and the second from 6 August 2024 to 5 August 2027 (§10).
The case against the landlord developed as follows:
- November 2024: JfT wrote to the Council. The Council replied that the property was licensed, and that a (renewal) application had been made on 29 July 2024 (§8).
- December 2024: JfT advised the tenants that they had a potential claim for two months’ rent. The advice rested on a belief that the property had been unlicensed between 8 May and 29 July 2024 (§9).
- 23 May 2025: JfT issued an application for twelve months’ rent (§12). On the same day, JfT sent the landlord a “without prejudice save as to costs” offer to settle at 85% of that twelve months’ rent. There had been no pre-claim correspondence at all (§13).
- October 2025: The tenants withdrew the application, and the landlord applied for costs.
Where it went wrong
The Tribunal identified four separate instances of unreasonable conduct by JfT (§16–19). Each is a lesson in what not to do.
1. The wrong question to the council. JfT asked the council whether the property currently had a licence and when the current application was made. It never asked the key question: was a licence in force for the whole of the claim period? The answers JfT received allowed a completely wrong inference to be drawn, namely that there was no licence before 29 July 2024 (§16).
2. A gap that never existed. By December 2024, JfT knew there had been an earlier licence. It never explained why it believed that licence had ended on 8 May 2024. The correspondence said to support that belief was not produced. The adviser who handled the case had left in February 2025, and nobody from JfT gave evidence about what had been investigated (§7, §17). Even on JfT’s own assumptions, the advice was wrong. Rent was payable on the 23rd of each month, so the supposed gap would have covered three rent days, not two (§11).
3. Claiming twelve months against their own advice. The Tribunal called this the worst of the four. JfT had told the tenants the claim was worth two months at most, yet the application claimed twelve. The Tribunal was told that each tenant signed the application with a statement of truth. JfT’s advocate at the costs hearing had not been involved earlier, and he put this down to a mistake. The Tribunal said there was no explanation for how such a mistake could have been made. Critically, the Tribunal found that the tenants themselves, having received the December emails, knew no twelve-month claim lay (§18, §21).
4. The 85% “offer”. Setting aside the twelve-month problem, the Tribunal found an 85% demand grossly exaggerated. It observed that most RROs are made at between 40% and 60% of the rent, and that 85% would be exceptional. It did not accept that JfT could genuinely have believed 85% was a reasonable settlement figure. It found that the offer was instead “made to intimidate the landlord, who had no legal advice at that point” (§19).
The Tribunal said that the first two failings alone would probably not have led to a costs order. Taken together with the third and fourth, however, there was a very strong case for one (§21).
How £240 became £3,240
The landlord’s initial costs were modest. It paid a local agent £240 to deal with the application, and the Tribunal found this wholly reasonable (§22–23).
The costs application was then listed for an oral hearing. The tenants were represented by a specialist advocate, and the Tribunal had found that their side had taken a very aggressive approach to the litigation. The Tribunal therefore held that the landlord was entitled to instruct counsel, at £3,000 (§24–25). It also noted that the tenants had made no offer at any point to settle the costs claim (§24).
JfT argued that the “costs of the costs” could not be recovered under rule 13(1)(b), and that £3,000 was disproportionate to a £240 claim. The Tribunal rejected both arguments (§26–34). The tenants also bear their own tribunal fees (§36).
Who pays?
The tenants do, not their representative. The order is made against the six applicants, whose names were on the application and who signed the statements of truth. The Tribunal also recorded that JfT is not an authorised firm of legal practitioners, and that it charges 36% (30% plus VAT) of any sums recovered (§6).
What this means for tenants
This decision should not put anyone off a well-founded claim. It does show that care at the start is everything. Before you apply:
- Establish the licensing position properly. Ask the council for the start and end dates of every licence, and of any licence application, covering the property. Ask expressly whether a licence or a duly made application was in force on each day of your proposed claim period. Ask for copies. Don’t build a claim on an inference.
- Keep the paper trail. If your case depends on something the council told you, you must be able to produce it.
- Map the dates. Set the rent payment dates against the offence period. You can only claim rent paid in respect of the period when the offence was being committed.
- Claim only what the evidence supports. A statement of truth is exactly that. If a claim is wrong, withdraw it or amend it early.
- Pitch the amount to the facts. The award is set by the seriousness of the offence and the parties’ conduct, following the stages in Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC). A higher ask is perfectly proper where the facts justify it, but it must be argued from those facts. It must never be used as a lever to frighten a landlord.
- Talk first. A letter before action narrows the issues. Here it would probably have exposed the error before any application was made.
- Know who is acting for you. Understand who stands behind the advice, and what happens if things go wrong.
With the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 raising the maximum period of rent that can be recovered, the stakes on both sides are going up. Tenants and their advisers will need to be more careful, not less.
Going forward
RROs remain one of the most effective tools tenants have. Almost every application forces a landlord to license the property, and so brings a council safety inspection with it. Unlicensed housing can be unsafe housing, and that is why we encourage renters to use the RRO legislation.
A claim built on shaky facts, however, damages the tenants who bring it and hands landlords a stick to beat every other applicant with. Our DIY guide and step-by-step resources at getrentback.org are designed to help tenants check their case thoroughly before they apply, so they can bring RROs with confidence.
See decision here: https://www.gov.uk/residential-property-tribunal-decisions/19-alderney-road-london-e1-4eg-lon-slash-00bg-slash-hmf-slash-2025-slash-0807
