A recent judgement may mean that future Rent Repayment Orders may be less severe than those in the past.

Many Rent Repayment Orders in recent years have appeared to default to demanding the landlord repay 100 per cent of the rent in a period – but a judge has now given First Tier Property Tribunals new guidance suggesting discretion could be used, without the entirety of the rent being the starting point for a settlement.

Instead, a decision in a recent appeal case to the Upper Tribunal – Acheampong v Roman & Ors and Choudhury v Razak & Ors – has set a new guidance for RROs. 

This means the order should take into consideration the full rent minus the cost of utilities, and in addition the RRO should take into consideration the offence’s seriousness compared to similar offences. 

It should then ask what proportion of the rent would be a fair reflection of these combined factors.

Sarah Cummins, a rent and landlord legal expert at the Anthony Gold law practice, says: “The guidance is helpful and should put an end to the practice of taking the full rent as the starting point and making deductions based on the statutory factors. 

“While it had already been confirmed in [an earlier case] Williams v Parmar that this was the wrong approach, [the judge]’s methodology should assist tribunals with their assessments particularly with ensuring the seriousness of the offence is properly considered before determining the starting point for the RRO.

“Whether this will lead to more consistent RRO awards is a different matter. 

“The Tribunal will need to evaluate the factors in the individual case and reach a conclusion on where on the scale of seriousness the offence lies. No doubt there will be differing views on this and future appeals may revolve around whether the tribunal has carried out that assessment correctly.”

You can read a more detailed account of the case and judgement that may lead to rethinking RROs here.