Are flats on separate leases therefore HMOs?

[vantagex]

if you had a house with 3 stories, self contained flats x5, not current building regs,..but all had individual leases would the building be a HMO. All leases owned by different people but one freeholder.

[Matthew Moody]

It does depend on what "communal facilities" are being shared.

The freehold issue doesn't matter at all - its all about the communal element.

Take a look at this link which shows the normal flow chart that you should use to determine whether its a HMO or not! You might need to click on it to make it appear clearer!

http://yourhmoexpert.com/wp-photos/HMO%20Flow%20Chart.jpg

[vantagex]

one would share nothing. The others share the entrance and hall way/stairs. Each flat has its own front door off the hallway/stairs. There is no sharing of any facilities.

But lets say that all the flats (or leases) were owned by different people, who would then be responsible for the HMO aspects? or indeed would it even be an issue. Thank you for the link, but i am fairly up to speed with HMO's it is just this situation that i am interested in. I mean i own a flat in a converted building which would be a HMO. But all the flats are owned by seperate individuals and the issue has never come up. So if I set up leases for all the flats in the other building, is it a loophole?

[Matthew Moody]

Its a good point - I think that it is an ownership issue that leads you down to the HMO licencing route.

If all flats are individually owned by seperate individuals then even if the freeholder is just one person, wouldn't they be responsible for maintaining the communal areas even though they are not technically up to 91 building regs standards?

The other way to look at it is what would be required to bring them up to standards as this may then ensure this issue doesn't raise its head in the future.

I would put in a "enquiry" call to your local HMO officer to find out about a "proposed" sale you might be making about this flat.

[red40]

It depends on if the leaseholders are owner-occupiers, if they are then it is unlikely to fall into the category of section 257 of the Housing Act 2004.

If they are all rented (i.e AST's) then it would be a HMO as per the above section.

If its a mix of owner occupiers and rented then the two thirds rule will apply.

As for who is responsible, one would expect the freeholder to add a clause into the leasehold that the leaseholders pay a set percentage of any works. If there is no such clause then its the freeholders responsibility.

[mind the gap]

Take a look at this link which shows the normal flow chart that you should use to determine whether its a HMO or not! You might need to click on it to make it appear clearer!

http://yourhmoexpert.com/wp-photos/HMO%20Flow%20Chart.jpg

I think this is wrong. It suggests that a property needs to have two or more 'households' AND three or more storeys to be an HMO.

The current govt definition is five or more people AND/OR three or more floors.

[Matthew Moody]

Hi "mind the gap"

The flowchat is perhaps a little hard to read unless you enlarge it but it says:

"Is it occupied by 5 or more people, including children, living as 2 or more households.

Its the same definition - its just that there needs to be more than 2 households to justify the mandatory licencing.

best regards
Matthew