The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has overturned a finding that resident landlords had a reasonable excuse for not licensing a shared house, and made its own rent repayment order for a former occupier.
Key facts
- Who: Tenants and occupiers of licensable houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), and landlords who manage them, including resident landlords.
- From: Judgment of 18 June 2026
- Source: Guillaume Marc-Alex Guinard v Klimas Jurevicius & Anor [2026] UKUT 226 (LC)
In Guinard v Jurevicius & Anor [2026] UKUT 226 (LC), decided on 18 June 2026, Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke allowed an appeal by Mr Guillaume Guinard against the First-tier Tribunal's refusal to make a rent repayment order against his former landlords.
Background
The Housing and Planning Act 2016 allows tenants and local housing authorities to apply for a rent repayment order against a landlord who has committed an offence listed in section 40. One of those offences is managing or controlling an HMO that must be licensed but is not (section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004).
The house was in an area of additional licensing designated by the London Borough of Southwark, in force until 1 March 2027. In that area, a shared property occupied by three or more people in two or more households needed a licence. Mr Guinard paid £775 a month under a written licence agreement dated 1 December 2022, and the rent for the 12-month period in question was £9,300.
The question
The landlords did not argue that anything prevented them from applying for a licence. Their case was that their efforts to get Mr Guinard to leave amounted to a reasonable excuse, which is a defence to the offence. The First-tier Tribunal accepted that. It also indicated that, had it been required to make an award, it would have made a nominal award of £1.
The decision and reasoning
The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had explained its decision adequately but erred in law. Its findings on this point were contrary to the evidence, and its conclusion was irrational.
The judge accepted that the landlords' position was difficult and stressful. But she found it hard to square with their evidence that they wanted him gone when they entered a written licence agreement shortly after buying the property and accepted rent. Nothing stopped them applying for an HMO licence, and no explanation was given for not doing so. The judge noted that, if they were set upon requiring him to leave, they could have applied for a Temporary Exemption Notice on purchase.
The £1 indication was unexplained or irrational. It did not consider the section 44 factors and put the tenant's conduct above all other considerations. With the parties' agreement, the Tribunal made its own decision rather than send the case back.
It ordered repayment, noting that the landlords knew a licence was needed. Following Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC), it deducted £1,380 for water, electricity and council tax, leaving £7,920. It treated this as a less serious example of a less serious offence, and took 50% of the rent as the starting point before considering the section 44 factors.
What this means for tenants and landlords
In this case, the landlords' wish to have the occupier leave was not a reasonable excuse for having no HMO licence. The Tribunal pointed to the fact that they accepted rent under a written agreement and that nothing prevented a licence application.
The Tribunal also held that the amount of any order depends on the factors in section 44 of the 2016 Act, and that the tenant's conduct should not be put above all other considerations.
Anyone involved in a similar dispute may wish to check whether a licence was required and in force for the period concerned, and to take advice on their own circumstances.
Sources
- Guillaume Marc-Alex Guinard v Klimas Jurevicius & Anor [2026] UKUT 226 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 18 June 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/226