HMO or House share

SteveSilva

Hi guys what is the difference between a House of Multiple Occupancy where you need a licence or a house share where you just rent out the rooms seperately where you do not, I mean why do you need such a licence?
Is it because BTL mortgages have conditions where you need to only rent to one tenant be it an individual or family?

jayss

Its your council that decides.
At mine its 5 people from 2 separate groups in a house of 3 or more floors.
ts for fire safety and stuff.

http://bristol.gov.uk/page/houses-multiple-occupation-hmo-licensing

SteveSilva

So generally speaking in my 3 bed house I want 3 tenants sharing a bathroom and kitchen do I need a HMO licence?

jennifernil

That will depend on where your house is. If it was in Glasgow, for example, it would be an HMO.

Ask your local council.

phill99

jayss wrote: »

Its your council that decides.
At mine its 5 people from 2 separate groups in a house of 3 or more floors.
ts for fire safety and stuff.

http://bristol.gov.uk/page/houses-multiple-occupation-hmo-licensing

Sorry, but it isn't your council that decides. Its a national definition covering England and Wales (Scotland has its own definition).

This is a quote from the governmemt website.

"An HMO must have a licence if they are:

• of three or more storeys
• occupied by five or more persons who form more than one household

A local council can also include other types of HMOs for licensing. You must apply for an HMO licence if one is required, and meet the terms and conditions of the licence."

So if you have 5 rooms let out to (effectively) individual tenants, OR the house if over 2 storeys, then it needs to be registered as a HMO with the Environmental Health Dept at your local authority.

If it is a HMO, yoiu need fire escapes, fire doors, fire proofing of electric cupboards, fire alarms, extinguishers etc.

If you had, say, a standard 3 bedroom house and let out to the three bedrooms and a dining room, thsi is only four people and as it is below 3 storeys, it would not be classed as a HMO and wouldn't need a licence or inspection etc.

Here is the Government website

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/Privaterenting/Repairsandstandards/DG_189200

red40

SteveSilva wrote: »

Hi guys what is the difference between a House of Multiple Occupancy where you need a licence or a house share where you just rent out the rooms seperately where you do not, I mean why do you need such a licence?
Is it because BTL mortgages have conditions where you need to only rent to one tenant be it an individual or family?

As per phils link a mandatory licensable HMO is 5 or more persons, 2 seperate households, at least 3 storey and some form of sharing.

Some councils now operate additional and selective licensing, which is different to mandatory and you should contact you council if need be.

Although a HMO is formed once 2 or more unrelated persons form 2 seperate households in a residential property. A HMO can also be self contained flats, but that is a different issue to you query

HTH

SteveSilva

Thanks guys, although my council site seems to be saying something else, this is what they say

What is HMO?

Standards for HMOs - Information for landlords.
HMO stands for House in Multiple Occupation, which means a building, or part of a building, such as a flat, that:

• is occupied by more than one household (see glossary) and where more than one household shares – or lacks – an amenity, such as a bathroom, toilet or cooking facilities

• is occupied by more than one household and which is a converted building – but not entirely self-contained flats (whether or not some amenities are shared or lacking)
• is a building converted into self-contained flats, but does not meet as a minimum standard the requirements of the 1991 building regulation, and at least one third of the flats are privately rented.

This means any property occupied by unrelated individuals such as sharers, students, single professionals etc. is now an HMO and must therefore comply with basic Health and Safety requirements.
Back to HMO's homepage.



Then the glossary says



Term: One household
Definition: The building is occupied by more than one household:

• as their only or main residence; or
• as a refuge for people escaping domestic violence; or
• by students during term time; or
• for other purposes prescribed by the government.

Term: In all cases
Definition: Occupation of the living accommodation must be the only use of that accommodation; and rents are payable or other benefits are provided.
Term: Household
Definition:

• a single person; or
• co-habiting couples including same sex couples; or
• a family (including foster children and children being cared for) and current domestic employees.

So to my understanding that means if I was to have two tenants on my standard 3 bed house I would need a HMO licence as each tenant constitutes a household. Does that sound correct? That will not be my home by the way.

DVardysShadow

As I see it, if N people come together and accept a tenancy on a 'joint and several' basis, you have reasonable grounds to think that they are a household. If people are tenants on individual tenancies, then they are not a household.

The whole idea of a household is potentially a legal minefield, But if they are on individual tenancies rather than joint and several, you cannot go far wrong by not accepting them as a single household. I know there are other legal definitions of household, but if the tenants are joint and several, you do have arguable grounds for considering them to be a household. This is not legal advice, it is pragmatic. Legally, I think it creates more problems than it solves to consider that a joint and several tenant is not a household, but the law has not caught up with my thinking yet, as is often the case.

red40

SteveSilva wrote: »

So to my understanding that means if I was to have two tenants on my standard 3 bed house I would need a HMO licence as each tenant constitutes a household. Does that sound correct?

No, it maybe a HMO but one that doesnt need a licence. A mandatory licensable HMO has to have at least 5 occupants, 2 seperate households, be a 3 minimum of 3 storeys and some form of sharing.

Not all HMO's need to be licensed.

red40

DVardysShadow wrote: »

As I see it, if N people come together and accept a tenancy on a 'joint and several' basis, you have reasonable grounds to think that they are a household.

You may think its reasonable, but under the Housing Act 2004 it is clear what constitutes a household and a joint and liable tenancy isnt one. In fact the HA04 has nothing to do with tenancies when the HMO definition is applied, its about occupant status, property type, rents and other considerations as described in section 254 of the Act.

HTH

DVardysShadow

red40 wrote: »

You may think its reasonable, but under the Housing Act 2004 it is clear what constitutes a household and a joint and liable tenancy isnt one. In fact the HA04 has nothing to do with tenancies when the HMO definition is applied, its about occupant status, property type, rents and other considerations as described in section 254 of the Act.

HTH

If you read what I wrote in context .... it was carefully written, using words like 'in my book' and 'the law has not caught up with my thinking yet'.

Actually, the issue is one of what constitutes a family or household rather than what constitutes a HMO, so section 258 provides the real answers insofar as there are any answers.

The law is being an brASS here. 258 tries to define a household and fails miserably, because it tiptoes around issues of morality andsingle sex relationships. So if you are a LL, you just look at the fact that they sign a joint and several tenancy and form the judgement that they are sh4gging each other. Job sorted.

Personally, I don't think the law has much business going deeper than whether the tenancy is Joint and Several . Although I think that it would help no end if the law did away with the labelof Joint and Several for tenancies and required that any more than one person signing an agreement meant that the signatories were signing 'as a household' and with Joint and Several responsibilities. This would avoid the Law getting involved with which beds people slept in as an artificial distinction as to whether they form a household.