HMO + Council tax + dodgy Landlord + dodgy tenant. Need help to avoid losing deposit

prudryden

barnaby-bear wrote:

lynzpower wrote:

I know you are probalby new here, so Ill go easy, but please be careful about how you describe your co-tenant, as we dont want this post pulled due to (percieved, intended or otherwise) racism. So do tread carefully.

I thought that HMO had to be more than 2 households- not 2?

QUOTE]

2 households are an HMO, the only exemption under new rules is a TWO *PERSON* (person not household) flat-share (i.e. shared tenancy rather than two single). So a couple sharing with single friend on same tenancy = HMO, two friends sharing on same tenancy not HMO, two strangers on single tenancies = HMO....

In my area, 2 households are not a licenseable HMO. This can be comprised of either 2 non-related persons (two households) or 2 cohabiting couples (4 persons = 2 households). In theory, I guess it is a House of Multiple Occupation but not licenseable. But, it keeps changing - you never know what's coming next week. All the estate agents in my area demanded a conference with the council and it was like a war, from what I have heard. The council itself is totally confused.

snapcracklepop

We should make the council live in HMPs

clutton_2

HMP - Her Majesty's Prisons ? - i should say so !!!!!!!!!!

barnaby-bear

prudryden wrote:

barnaby-bear wrote:

In my area, 2 households are not a licenseable HMO. This can be comprised of either 2 non-related persons (two households) or 2 cohabiting couples (4 persons = 2 households). In theory, I guess it is a House of Multiple Occupation but not licenseable. But, it keeps changing - you never know what's coming next week. All the estate agents in my area demanded a conference with the council and it was like a war, from what I have heard. The council itself is totally confused.

I'm talking not about local interpretations but the legal wording of the 2004 housing acts definition:
Some councils are not implementing 2 household licensing with a period of grace but technically they are HMOs....
http://www.westminster.gov.uk/housing/multipleoccupancyhomes/index.cfm
"
An HMO is a building or part of building (flat) which is

a) Is occupied by more than one household.

AND

b) At least one of the households shares or lacks access to a basic amenity ("basic amenities" means a toilet; personal washing facilities; or cooking facilities)

AND

c) Occupation by the households is as their main residence

AND

d) It is the sole residential use of the accommodation.

This includes bedsits, houses partly converted into self-contained flats, hostels, accommodation above shops and shared houses and flats.
"

There is currently a two person flat share exemption in the legisalation sometimes phrased as 3 or more persons in two households licensable
http://www.westminster.gov.uk/housing/multipleoccupancyhomes/upload/licensing%20and%20registration%20info%20leaflet%2011.%205%2006.pdf

"

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1163883&cat=100022
Certain types of properties are not classed as HMOs for the purpose of the Housing Act 2004 (other than for the Housing Health and Safety Rating System) and, as a result, are not subject to licensing. These include:

two person flat share; a property, or part of a property, lived in by no more than two ‘households’ each of which consists of just one person.
a property where the landlord and his household is resident with up to 2 tenants.
buildings occupied entirely by freeholders or long leaseholders.
buildings managed or controlled by a public body (such as the police or the NHS), a local housing authority or a registered social landlord.
a building where the residential accommodation is ancillary to the main use of the building, for example, religious buildings, conference centres etc.
buildings which are already regulated (and where the description of the building is specified in regulations), such as care homes, bail hostels etc. (However, domestic refuges are not exempt.)
Purpose built blocks of flats are not HMOs. However, if any of the individual flats are shared by more than 2 tenants in two are more households they will be HMOs.
Houses which are converted entirely into self-contained flats will only be HMOs if the conversion did not meet the standard of the 1991 Building Regulations and more than one-third of the flats are let out on short term tenancies
"

clutton_2

"""two person flat share; a property, or part of a property, lived in by no more than two ‘households’ each of which consists of just one person"" - are NOT a HMO - this is the crucial bit from the governements website.

Westminster council has been maverick over many many local governement issues for years !!!

barnaby-bear

clutton wrote:

"""two person flat share; a property, or part of a property, lived in by no more than two ‘households’ each of which consists of just one person"" - are NOT a HMO - this is the crucial bit from the governements website.

Westminster council has been maverick over many many local governements for years !!!

If you download the full (very dull ) housing act 2004 - it is in there, most councils sensibly are rolling it starting with the worst offenders...

prudryden

Just checked a flow chart put out by my council. It seems to contradict what they had previously written. Now it talks about the 1984 AND the 1991 Building Regs. It states substantially that if you DON'T have a 1984 Building Regs certificate - wait for further regs (watch this space). If you don't have a 1991 Building Regs certificate - then you must register, but not sure whether you have to be licensed yet. Great!!! Have one Edwardian property built in 1906, converted into three flats in 1959. Remodeled and upgraded since then over time into lovely flats. Not likely to ever find one of those certificates - so now what?
Fairly soon, those who are unable to buy will be unable to rent as well, if this keeps up.

clutton_2

i have been reading up on HMO's and attending ODPM/Westminster organised workshops for landlords for the last 18 months. Almost without exception, "difficult" questions from the floor were answerd with "wait and see how your local authority interprets this clause - local housing needs will produce local variations - in other words, " we don't know - we will not commit ourselves".

Most questions were about the definition of a licenseable HMO and what criteria had to be met - answered with such wide variation. The actual wording of the Act is very clear - its now that local authorities are mucking about with it, that there is utter confusion.

The only way for a landlord to find out if his/her property is a HMO is to ring the council and ask them; then (if it is licensabale anyway) fill in a huge form; prepare to be Police checked (!! yes, police checked - should all new shop-keepers be police checked next ???? - the rationale from Westminster on this was landlords come into contact with children ); pay a goodley sum of money and then get a builder in to do all the insane alterations to the property which some goon in London thought was sensible.

Although there were some appalling landlords offering lethal accommodation, this Act is 10 sledgehammers to crack 2 very small nuts in my view.

Local authority housing departments have ALWAYS had the legal authority to take poor landlords to court - there have ALWAYS been Health & Safety factors governing Bedsits - and they have always had the ability to close such appalling properties - but they very rarely did. I have seen properties in gross squalor all over the country which have been served "repair notices" from the council housing departments, and a year later, are still as squalid as before.

This new Act is about to be used as yet another fund-raiser for local government. Three storey HMO owners (unless you live in Hull where it is 2storey and above) now pay license fees to their local authority - John Prescott, (in spite of 2 years lobbying by Landlords professional associations) refused utterly to place a ceiling on fees, and gave no definitive time-length for a license - so some landlords have to pay annually some every 3 years etc. etc.

It is an utter shambles.

All the landlords bodies are utterly convinced that the upshot of all this in 2-3 years will be a considerable reduction in the amount of rental accommodation available - who will suffer then ? Tenants of course.

Meantime, the really sh*ite landlords will continue to operate underground, housing immigrant and indigenous folks in over-crowded squalor.

It is now surprising that no one Really understands this new Act - apart from anything else, Prescott refused to pay for television advertising to tell landlords about it - this is why, for exaple Bristol has had less than 30% of the HMO's the council knows about applying for registration = let alone the ones they dont know about.

C*ock up does not even begin to describe this Act




rant over


at least for now

snapcracklepop

Thanks again for replies.

Firstly

"two person flat share; a property, or part of a property, lived in by no more than two ‘households’ each of which consists of just one person."

This is a lifeline, however I can't find it in the housing act. I guess it's just the same rephrased but can someone more familar find it for me. I'll have a good look.

However, technically it may not apply to my circumstances because my flatmate does not rent my room and he cannot enter that room without a key so cannot share that part of the property. This is not the same as part of a property, lived in by no more than two households.

However! part of the property is lived in by more than two households (living room!), so perhaps that part of the house is not a HMO. :rotfl:

Perhaps I should camp out in the living room!

Actually, doesn't that just state we share abit of it, and therefore don't share the other bit.

My landlord suggested we draw up a new tenancy, and make it joint. Problem is I've already claimed housing benefit using the single tenancy. Is this a workaround?

snapcracklepop

Unfortunately,
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/40034--s.htm#254

My accommodation meets the standard test.

"two person flat share; a property, or part of a property, lived in by no more than two ‘households’ each of which consists of just one person." come into the act?
If only I lived in Westminster