Rent repayment orders › by offence
Improvement notice not complied with
Rent repayment order decisions where the offence was failure to comply with an improvement notice (section 30, Housing Act 2004).
8 of 18 applications on this ground with a known outcome ended in an order (44%). Most did not: they were dismissed, withdrawn, struck out or out of time. The tribunal has to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed.
What the tribunal ordered in England
20 decisions (8 ended in a rent repayment order).
Only 0 decisions with a checked amount. That is too few to show a pattern.
| All | Before 5 Sep 2022 | Since 5 Sep 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ended in a rent repayment order | 44% 8 of 18 | – | 44% 8 of 18 |
| Typical amount ordered, per applicant | – | – | – |
| Typical amount ordered, per decision | – | – | – |
| Typical share of the maximum the tribunal could award | – | – | – |
No decision here yet concerns an offence on or after 1 May 2026, when the maximum rose to 24 months' rent. Every figure is under the old rules, where the maximum was 12 months' rent.
"Per applicant" divides what the tribunal ordered in a decision by the number of applicants in it; "per decision" is the total ordered across all of them, as the decision states it.
"Typical" is the median. n is the number of decisions each figure comes from. Figures from fewer than 5 decisions are shown as "too few".
The Upper Tribunal set out how the amount is fixed in Acheampong v Roman on 5 September 2022.
The tribunal can only make an order if it is sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the landlord committed the offence. That is why not every application ends in an order. Old rules: offence before 1 May 2026, maximum 12 months' rent. New rules: offence on or after 1 May 2026, maximum 24 months' rent.
Past decisions are not a prediction. The tribunal decides each case on its facts, including the landlord's and tenant's conduct.
Left out of the figures, but listed below: decisions whose outcome or amount we haven't been able to check. Dismissed, withdrawn, struck-out and out-of-time applications count towards "ended in an order" but never supply an amount.
Other offences
- Unlicensed HMO
- Unlicensed house (selective licensing)
- Illegal eviction
- Harassment
- Prohibition order not complied with
- Violence for securing entry
- Breach of a banning order
- Misuse of a possession ground
- Breach of letting rules
- Other
Decisions
Search by postcode or browse by local authority for the rest.
Click an address, or "Read the reasoning", to see why the tribunal decided what it did: the figures, an extract from its reasons on the amount and a link to the full decision on GOV.UK.
| Address | Offence | Landlord | Rent pcm | Maximum | Per applicant | Ordered, total | Applicants | Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 Margaret Terrace, Highfield, Rowlands Gill, NE39 2NG Read the reasoning period not stated | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Dismissed | 1 | 15 Jul 2026 | ||||
| 11 Evershot Road, Bournemouth, BH8 9PD Read the reasoning period not stated | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Dismissed | 1 | 22 Jun 2026 | ||||
| 64 Bradley Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 0RA Read the reasoning period not stated | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Dismissed | 1 | 18 Jun 2026 | ||||
| 26 Vinery Place, Richmond Hill, Leeds, LS9 9LZ Read the reasoning old rules | Improvement notice not complied with | company Casita Group Limited |
Dismissed | 1 | 10 Mar 2026 | ||||
| Flat 2, 12 Elphinestone Road, Southsea, Hampshire PO5 3HR Read the reasoning old rulesfigures not yet checked | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | £7,200 | £5,760 | £5,760 | 1 | 80% | 15 Jan 2026 | |
| 34 Howard Street, Reading, RG1 7XS Read the reasoning old rulesfigures not yet checked | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | £5,080.47 | £2,856 | £2,856 | 1 | 56% | 1 Dec 2025 | |
| 99A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 3BY Read the reasoning old rules | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Dismissed | 1 | 17 Oct 2025 | ||||
| 20b St Georges Road, Forest Gate, Newham, London E7 8HY Read the reasoning old rules | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Dismissed | 2 | 29 Sep 2025 | ||||
| 1 Chilcompton Road, Midsomer Norton, Radstock, BA3 2PJ Read the reasoning old rules | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Dismissed | 2 | 17 Sep 2025 | ||||
| Flat 2, 2 Albert Road, Queensbury, Bradford BD13 1PB Read the reasoning old rules | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Dismissed | 1 | 29 Aug 2025 | ||||
| 11 Bond End, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire, HG5 9AW Read the reasoning old rulesfigures not yet checked | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | £1,620 | £106.52 | £213.03 | 2 | 13% | 26 Aug 2025 | |
| 23 Ivy Road, Luton, Bedfordshire. LU1 1Dl Read the reasoning old rulesfigures not yet checked | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | £3,471 | £520.65 | £1,561.95 | 3 | 45% | 4 Aug 2025 | |
| 27 Horton Road, Manchester, M14 7QB Read the reasoning old rules | Improvement notice not complied with | company and individuals | Not clear | 2 | 19 May 2025 | ||||
| 49 Kings Avenue, Watford, WD18 7SB Read the reasoning old rulesfigures not yet checked | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | £3,000 | £3,000 | £3,000 | 1 | 100% | 28 Apr 2025 | |
| 3 Stanford Court, Central Road, Stanford-Le-Hope, Essex SS17 0GO Read the reasoning old rulesfigures not yet checked | Improvement notice not complied with | company Icon The Green Limited |
£671.42 | £671.42 | 1 | 12 Feb 2024 | |||
| 7 Crofton Close, Beechdale, Nottingham, NG8 3HH Read the reasoning old rules | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Out of time or no jurisdiction | 1 | 5 Dec 2023 | ||||
| 15 Bremiham Rise, Malmesbury, Wiltshire, SN16 0DH Read the reasoning old rulesfigures not yet checked | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | £6,000 | £150 | £300 | 2 | 5% | 18 Sep 2023 | |
| First Floor Flat 9a Carr Rd E17 5ER Read the reasoning old rulesfigures not yet checked | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | £1,674 | £1,674 | 1 | 10 Feb 2023 | |||
| 52A, Little Ilford Lane, London E12 5PW Read the reasoning old rules | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Struck out | 1 | 1 Dec 2022 | ||||
| (x2) Flats 2 & 3, 29 South Road, Twickenham, Middlesex, TW2 5NU 0003 Read the reasoning old rules | Improvement notice not complied with | individual | Not clear | 3 | 31 Jan 2022 | ||||
Rent per calendar month, the maximum the tribunal could award (the rent for the period, less any benefits), the amount ordered and its share of that maximum, as the decision states them. "Per applicant" is the total ordered divided by the number of applicants shown; "Ordered, total" is the whole amount for the decision. A blank maximum means the decision never states it as one figure, or it hasn't been checked. Individual landlords are never named here; companies are.
The rules on who can apply and when are explained by Shelter and on GOV.UK.