A landlord in south-east London has successfully defended themselves against a hefty £17,000 Rent Repayment Order (RRO) claim after legal experts exposed fatal flaws in the case. The attempt to claw back rent — based on allegations the property was unlicensed — was withdrawn in full before it even reached tribunal, saving the landlord thousands.
Valid licence application proved decisive
The case, brought by campaign group Justice for Tenants, accused the landlord of operating without the proper licence under the Housing Act 2004. But as it turned out, that argument didn’t hold water. Evidence showed a valid licensing application had been submitted to the London Borough of Lewisham well in advance, offering full statutory protection.
Although Lewisham Council had failed to issue a final licence, the fact that an application had been duly made — and acknowledged — meant the landlord could not legally be penalised.
“They came for £17,000, and left with nothing but a lesson in the law,” said Desmond Taylor, Casework Director at Landlord Licensing & Defence, the firm that represented the landlord.
Taylor added: *“Once again, we’ve demonstrated that we don’t just know the law — we enforce it properly. If a licence is duly applied for and the local authority sits on its hands, that’s their failure, not the landlord’s. Lewisham took the money, acknowledged the application, and failed to follow through. That’s not a criminal offence — it’s a bureaucratic ***-up.”
Landlords warned not to panic when faced with claims
This case should come as a confidence boost to landlords who fear being unfairly targeted by rent repayment claims — particularly when delays or administrative failings lie with the council.
Legal experts have long criticised the growing use of RROs in cases where no criminal wrongdoing has occurred. The Housing Act 2004 makes it clear: protection is provided from the moment a licence application is submitted. Failure by the local authority to issue the licence in a timely manner does not create automatic liability for landlords — something tribunals and legal representatives are increasingly reinforcing.
One Lewisham-based landlord, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “This win shows that we’ve got to stand our ground when we’ve done things by the book. I filed the paperwork, paid the fee, and followed the law. I shouldn’t be punished because the council didn’t do their job.”
Justice for Tenants, which had brought the claim on the renter’s behalf, withdrew the case entirely when faced with the evidence, meaning there was no tribunal ruling and no financial penalty.
Local authority delays are not a landlord’s crime
This outcome could have far-reaching implications for landlords across the capital and beyond. Many councils are known to take months — sometimes over a year — to process licence applications, creating a limbo that bad-faith actors can exploit with RRO claims. But this case reinforces the legal position: if a landlord has submitted a complete application and paid the required fee, they are protected.
Desmond Taylor summed it up bluntly: “We’ve made it crystal clear: landlords who follow the law should not be vilified because of local authority incompetence.”
