I am quite correct Tony on HMO licensing, without going off a tangent on HMO and licensing, in response to the OP question LA have to police certain types of properties with regards to LGSR.
I can see where you are getting confused, the definition of a HMO is now split in 'tests' which are contained within the new Act ONLY properties that are classed by some of those tests will require a HMO license, that doesn't mean if you dont need a license it isn't a HMO
I have a house with only ONE occupant and that is classed as HMO
I would be interested to see which 'test' under the Housing Act the property you describe comes under.
Its NOTHING to do with the number of rooms, stories or even people
Again for the purpose of HMO licensing this is incorrect it has everything to do with storeys, households and people numbers and sharing of amenities.
There are other types of HMO's which the above might not be relevant i.e self contained flat, low risk HMO who share some amenities, etc, etc.
Its virtually impossible to argue against it
Now that is correct, but until it has either been put before the Rental Property Tribunal (RPT) or a court of law it would be impossible to say different, however the new Act has been specifically written to 'try' and cover all loopholes when it comes to privately rented accommodation.
If two people each pay half individually then its a HMO
again that is correct, if they are unrelated by definition of the Act it would be classed as a HMO.
Its not that simple as the LA can unilaterally decide that factors of the occupation can make it HMO like two married couples living in a two bed flat.
that is correct it would fall within 'additional HMO licensing'.
Its all to do with John 'two jags, two shags' Prescot