Guillaume Marc-Alex Guinard v Klimas Jurevicius & Anor

A landlord’s reasonable excuse defence to managing an unlicensed HMO is not established merely because an occupier’s conduct made it difficult to secure their departure. Where landlords knew a licence was required, could apply for one, and chose to grant a written right to occupy and accept rent, efforts to persuade the occupier to leave did not explain their failure to obtain a licence. In assessing a rent repayment order, a tribunal should deduct tenant-benefiting utility costs, assess the offence’s seriousness and consider the statutory factors. Tenant conduct cannot alone justify a nominal award; resident-landlord status may affect the assessment.

Guinard occupied a room in a shared house owned and occupied by Jurevicius and Arno, his resident landlords. He paid rent under a written lodger agreement. The landlords knew that the property required an HMO licence if it had more than two lodgers, but did not apply for one.

Guinard and a co-occupier, Sorlie, applied to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for rent repayment orders. The FTT found that an offence under the Housing Act 2004 had been committed but accepted the landlords’ reasonable excuse defence and refused an order. Guinard alone appealed. He challenged the findings said to support the defence and the FTT’s indication that, if an order were due, it would award only £1. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the defence was made out and, if not, what amount should be repaid.

The appeal was allowed. The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT’s finding that the landlords had a reasonable excuse, substituted a finding that they had none, and made a rent repayment order of £1,980.

1. Reasonable excuse. Guinard did not challenge the FTT’s findings about the parties’ difficult relationship and the occupiers’ conduct. But the findings that the landlords had made enquiries and were confused about licensing were contrary to the evidence: the enquiries relied on were made in 2025, after the application, and the landlords had said they knew a licence was required. Nothing showed that Guinard’s conduct prevented them from applying. Their case was that trying to get him to leave was a reasonable excuse, not that they were unable to apply.
2. The landlords’ knowledge of the licensing requirement, their ability to apply, and their choice to enter a written agreement and accept rent left their failure to apply unexplained. Their difficulties as resident landlords were understandable, but did not establish a reasonable excuse on these facts. The FTT’s conclusion was irrational and an error of law. It was set aside and replaced with a finding that the defence under section 72(5) of the Housing Act 2004 was not made out.
3. Amount. The FTT’s proposed £1 award was inadequately explained and irrational because it elevated the tenant’s conduct over the other statutory considerations. With the parties’ agreement, the Upper Tribunal decided the amount itself on the FTT’s findings rather than remitting the matter. Under section 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the tenant’s conduct was one relevant factor, alongside the landlords’ conduct, their financial circumstances and any relevant convictions. The resident-landlord relationship also affected the assessment because conflict in a shared home can make formal steps to remove an occupier difficult.
4. Following the assessment guidance in Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC), the Tribunal started with £9,300 rent, deducted £1,380 for utilities, and assessed the offence as among the less serious offences covered by the Act. It set a 50% starting point, then weighed the occupier’s conduct against the landlords’ failure to license the property despite knowing the requirement, their decision to accept rent, and their resident-landlord status. With no findings about the landlords’ finances and no suggestion of convictions, it ordered repayment of 25% of the net rent, £1,980. A separate order was to address the landlords’ application for a stay.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): In [2026] UKUT 226 (LC) , allowed Guinard’s appeal, set aside the FTT’s reasonable-excuse finding, substituted its own decision and made a rent repayment order of £1,980.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Found that an offence had been committed but accepted the landlords’ reasonable excuse defence and refused a rent repayment order. It indicated that, if an order were required, it would have awarded £1.