re-wire imminent - some questions, any help appreciated

[SimonH2]

Plus the family downstairs - so three "households". Much of the wording is written on the basis that the whole property is let and/or aimed at tenants - so anomalies like that where the wording doesn't really fit.
But you'd need to read the actual regs to be sure.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Plus the family downstairs - so three "households".

No, including the family 'downstairs' - it's their house - so only one "household".


Would you say that, for example, an extended family of three generations who took in a lodger would require an HMO licence?

HMOs are most frequently student accommodation where several (lots?) of unrelated people share one house with one bathroom and one kitchen.

 

[JohnW2]

No, including the family 'downstairs' - it's their house - so only one "household". Would you say that, for example, an extended family of three generations who took in a lodger would require an HMO licence?

Quite. When I moved into my present house, many moons ago, we had four generations here - myself+wife, our daughters and my mother and grandmother. Had the concept existed back then, is it seriously being suggested that would count as an 'HMO'?!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Would you say that, for example, an extended family of three generations who took in a lodger would require an HMO licence?

Only if you suggest that an extended family of multiple generations weren't related !

[Quite. When I moved into my present house, many moons ago, we had four generations here - myself+wife, our daughters and my mother and grandmother. Had the concept existed back then, is it seriously being suggested that would count as an 'HMO'?!

Ditto - I think you'll find that you were all related.


The definitions for HMO differ depending on whether it's for licensing and management, planning (there's a C4 category now which the described situation doesn't meet - sounds like C3(c)), or council tax.

For licensing and management, the definitions are :

An HMO [defined in ss.254 to 259 of the Housing Act 2004] is a building, or part of a building, such as a flat, that:

is occupied by more than one household and where the occupants share, lack or must leave the front door to use an amenity, such as a bathroom, toilet or cooking facilities
or

is occupied by more than one household in a converted building where not all the flats are self-contained (whether or not some amenities are shared or lacking). A self-contained unit is one which has inside it a kitchen (or cooking area), bathroom and toilet for the exclusive use of the household living in the unit. If the occupiers needs to leave the unit to gain access to any one of these amenities then the unit is not self-contained.

So from this it's clear that the exact arrangement of facilities, and who is allowed to use them, is key to whether it's an HMO or not. From the OPs description, it's not completely clear. If (for example) there are several rooms on one floor, where only the lodger on that floor is allowed to use them, and they form a self contained unit then it probably isn't an HMO. But if (for example) someone lodging on the second floor had to use facilities on the first floor, even if those facilities weren't shared with the lodger on the first floor, then you might find the local council arguing that it is an HMO.

Generally a household is a family (including cohabiting couples and same sex couples) or other relationships, such as fostering, carers and domestic staff. It includes cousins, aunties and uncles and step-relatives. Each unrelated tenant sharing a property will be a single household.

It gets a bit more complicated, the advice I have is that

Properties which are shared by two individuals are exempt from the HMO definition as are those with a resident landlord with no more than two lodgers.

Looking back, at the moment it looks like it's not an HMO (since the father is related) and there are TWO households - and I stand corrected (provided that the unrelated lodger does genuinely have his/her own separate facilities). Once the father is replaced with another lodger, then the situation changes - there will be THREE households. If either of the current lodgers is replaced with a couple then that last exemption disappears.

Like I said earlier, one needs to read carefully the regulations as what may seem like fairly minor details can have great significance - in this case, whether the upper floors really are "self contained". Should the property fall into the definition of HMO, then in some areas the owner/manager must be licensed. Regardless of whether a license is required, there are a number of obligations that come with managing an HMO - failure to comply can result in prosecution and fines up to £5000.

 

[SimonH2]

Just to add, from the original question, it could be argued that by installing separate facilities and metering the upper floors have been converted into flats. It's then a question of whether a floor with no "front door" to it has the facilities "inside it" - especially the first floor where (I assume) the access stairs for the 2nd floor pass.


But ultimately, if it comes down to it, it's not me, or anyone else on this forum that would need to be persuaded - it would be the enforcement people at the local council (and worst case, the judge).

 

[JohnW2]

Would you say that, for example, an extended family of three generations who took in a lodger would require an HMO licence?

Only if you suggest that an extended family of multiple generations weren't related !

[Quite. When I moved into my present house, many moons ago, we had four generations here - myself+wife, our daughters and my mother and grandmother. Had the concept existed back then, is it seriously being suggested that would count as an 'HMO'?!

Ditto - I think you'll find that you were all related.

I wonder if you have read the information in this thread carefully enough. As I understand what we have been told, there is the householder and his family, including his father (i.e. all related), plus just one single female lodger. How does that count as an HMO?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It gets a bit more complicated, the advice I have is that

Does no one know?

 

[JohnW2]

Properties which are shared by two individuals are exempt from the HMO definition as are those with a resident landlord with no more than two lodgers.

Looking back, at the moment it looks like it's not an HMO (since the father is related) and there are TWO households - and I stand corrected (provided that the unrelated lodger does genuinely have his/her own separate facilities). Once the father is replaced with another lodger, then the situation changes - there will be THREE households.

Have you read the material you quoted? Unless my eyes are deceiving me it says "a resident landlord and no more than two lodgers". That being the case, it would still be exempt if the father were replaced with a 'stranger', wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Even if you count the father as a lodger (why?)

Because they are making the poor old bloke pay rent?

 

[JohnW2]

Even if you count the father as a lodger (why?)

Because they are making the poor old bloke pay rent?

Would the sharing of household costs between family members actually count as 'paying rent'? If it did, there would probably be an awful lot of 'lodgers' out there!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Have you read the material you quoted? Unless my eyes are deceiving me it says "a resident landlord and no more than two lodgers". That being the case, it would still be exempt if the father were replaced with a 'stranger', wouldn't it?

And did I not point out that if one of those lodgers became a couple then it would no longer be "no more than two lodgers" ?
EDIT: So for example, elderly father moves out, and young couple who can't afford a flat move in ...

Anyway, I think it's possible to agree that (as long as you take the other definitions into account) that it's not clear cut either way. At the moment it looks like it isn't an HMO - but it would not be hard for that to change (without the OPs employer realising).
Better to check and be sure than to assume and be caught out. As I've pointed out, the rules aren't trivially simple - and may depend on an interpretation of whether the rented spaces are self contained or not. Also, given that the situation could so easily change, it's worth considering at this stage whether any works could/should be included now/done differently (while it's relatively easy) so that it doesn't become an issue in the future.

 

[JohnW2]

Have you read the material you quoted? Unless my eyes are deceiving me it says "a resident landlord and no more than two lodgers". That being the case, it would still be exempt if the father were replaced with a 'stranger', wouldn't it?

And did I not point out that if one of those lodgers became a couple then it would no longer be "no more than two lodgers" ?

You did, indeed, but only after saying that if the father were replaced with a (single) stranger that would result in "THREE households" - which I thought, perhaps wrongly, was meant to imply that it would then no longer be exempt.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just as a matter of interest -

Normal three-bedroom semi-detached.
Eight students - three couples, obviously not married nor in a civil partnership for the p.c., and two others sharing one of the rooms.

Definitely a house of multiple occupancy but how many 'households' (stupid term) is this?

One,
Four,
Five,
Eight.

 

[SimonH2]

Based on the definitions, I'd put it at 5. But others may disagree.

 

[JohnW2]

Based on the definitions, I'd put it at 5. But others may disagree.

Well, per the definitions you quoted, that does indeed seem to be the 'correct' answer, but it does seem a bit daft. Given that the concept of HMOs essentially relates to matters of safety, what difference can it possibly make as to whether two people sharing a room are 'a couple' or not?

Indeed, knowing how the world works, a 'non-couple' pair of people sharing a room could easily evolve into their being 'a couple' (particularly if they had a few drinks!) - or a 'couple' could 'go off' each other, but remain in the same room for practical reasons!

Do the rules define 'a couple'?

Kind Regards, John