Local authority's HMO definition is 'wrong'

[Bel]

I believe a certain L.A.'s HMO definition is wrong. An officer told me that a three storey converted house (converted 20 + years ago), with four flats (with a grand total of at least 5 tenants,) is not an HMO as the flats do not share facilities.

My question;
Regarding licensable HMOs, does the LL only have to worry about what his L.A. interprets the Housing Act 2004 to be, even if he thinks they're wrong?

[red40]

It does sound as though the LA are having trouble dicephering the difference between a HMO by definition and a licensable HMO.

I would suggest that you try to get their opinion in writing. Afterall they can come back and explain that it was their misinteruptation of the Housing Act, which isn't an easy document to understand.

[Bel]

I have started to doubt myself again.

In your opinion red40,

Should a converted house on 3 floors, made into 4 flats, containing a sum total of at least 5 occupiers (probably more) be a licenced hmo?

[red40]

If the property you describe is entirely self contained flats (3 storey, converted pre 1991 and has 5 tenants) then it would be a HMO by definition.

[Bel]

An HMO that requires licensing.

[red40]

Not if it building consists of only self contained units

[Bel]

I don't understand why, if the building is an HMO, 3 levels, and has 5+ unrelated people, why it doesn't need to be licenced. If you could point me to the exact wording I would appreciate it. I've been on the government site "Does my HMO need a mandatory licence?" page, which is a little bit simplistic, but the answer comes out it needs a mandatory licence.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1163990

More help appreciated!

Edited update:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-2183.html

Just found this archive piece. The search did not come up with anything for the word HMO, so I used "mandatory licence" as the key word.

Epilogue: Why don't they (the government, Local Authorities) just use loads of examples of what is and what isn't a licensable HMO on their websites to help folks like me!

[red40]

Mainly because there are so many HMO variables.

Basically in response to you query, you would have to look at the Housing Act and apply a HMO definition as set out in sections 254 - 257. If you can find a link to the Housing Act 2004 look at section 257 'certain converted blocks of flats', you will find that this HMO definition applies here (entirely self contained flats). You then need to look at Statutory Instrument 371, 'The Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Descriptions) (England) Order 2006', which says

1(2) this Order applies to any HMO in England, other than a converted block of flats to which section 257 of the Act applies

Therefore you cant licence a section 257 converted block of flats.

[Bel]

Thanks. I've taken that on board now. I've learnt something.

Am I correct in saying that HMO management regulations do not apply either in this situation.

Is it likely that the licensing situation in this case will change soon? Something I saw about a draft ammendment in another post. Or has it fallen by the wayside?

[red40]

Am I correct in saying that HMO management regulations do not apply either in this situation.



Correct, however there are draft regulations waiting to be approved. So the management standards that are required at the moment are being carried out under the old Housing Act 1985.

Anything can change with this new Act or amended as required, personally I am hoping that they amend the wash hand basin rule but we will have to wait and see.