HMO in Scotland

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mojisola wrote: »

he didn't think of asking about HMO because he was replacing a previous tenant who had been there some years.

It's entirely possible that the tenancy has been running since before the HMO law came into effect. A surprisingly large number of tenancies like that have been.

He assumed that everything was above board, especially as they filled in forms for the council about council tax. It seems as if the council doesn't have a joined-up system throughout their different departments.

Most councils don't really seem to care too much about the 3 bed situations.

There are an awful lot of 3 bed properties out there without an HMO license that are being used as one, but as discussed above, at the 3 bed level it's pretty difficult for neighbours or councils to tell if it's 2 cousins and a friend, 2 partners and a friend, a brother and sister and a friend, or 3 completely unrelated friends.

So most of the time, they just don't bother unless there's a complaint.

All the really active enforcement I've seen has been the larger properties, with more people living in them. And rightly so.... The law is right to address these properties. It's the small ones where it seems to be a bit pointless.

tbs624

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There's a general consensus amongst landlords and tenants in Scotland that the HMO net was drawn too tight with the "3 or more" definition, and that it should have been "more than 3" instead.

Any evidence for your assertion that there is a "general consensus"? I would say that it's more the case that *some* LLs would prefer that the HMO rules were less prescriptive. Any LL who has a measure of the exploitative about him/her would very definitely try to shout down the need for HMO regs.

As for Ts, the HMO regs were of course designed to make rental properties safer, especially where there are Ts who are on short term contracts and are less likely to look out for one another than members of a family unit would be in the event of a fire etc.

Mojisola

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's the small ones where it seems to be a bit pointless.

This is what the tenants feel. If the house was rented out to a family there could be two parents and two or three adult children living there without the house needing to be registered as a HMO.

tbs624

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's entirely possible that the tenancy has been running since before the HMO law came into effect. A surprisingly large number of tenancies like that have been.

... which does not mean that the current HMO licensing rules do not apply.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tbs624 wrote: »

I would say that it's more the case that *some* LLs would prefer that the HMO rules were less prescriptive. Any LL who has a measure of the exploitative about him/her would very definitely try to shout down the need for HMO regs.

Indeed they would.

However, as previously noted, the current rules state that a boyfriend, girlfriend and friend can live together without an HMO license. As can a brother, sister and friend. As can 2 cousins and a friend. But 3 friends cannot.

Observing that the law is a complete a55 in this regard is not a sign of being exploitative but rather a sign of sanity....

As for Ts, the HMO regs were of course designed to make rental properties safer, especially where there are Ts who are on short term contracts and are less likely to look out for one another than members of a family unit would be in the event of a fire etc.

Which is all very well, and I have already noted the HMO laws are wholly sensible and justified in larger properties.

But to suggest that there is any meaningful difference in the safety of tenants because two of the three residents are cousins, or boyfriend and girlfriend, versus all three being friends, is quite frankly risible.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mojisola wrote: »

This is what the tenants feel.

Most do.

It was daft to define it as three or more, it should have been more than three.

And because so many people feel it's daft, (including many council officials, if you ask them off the record) we've ended up in a situation where it's rarely enforced by officials and widely ignored by tenants at the 3 bed level.

If the house was rented out to a family there could be two parents and two or three adult children living there without the house needing to be registered as a HMO.

Indeed.

Mojisola

It's been interesting to learn about this situation but I've spoken to my relative tonight and he's looking for somewhere else to move to. His sibling can't guarantee moving in within the necessary timescale and he isn't willing to go with either of the options offered by the LL.

tbs624

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

However, as previously noted, the current rules state that a boyfriend, girlfriend and friend can live together without an HMO license. As can a brother, sister and friend. As can 2 cousins and a friend. But 3 friends cannot.

My bolding AFAIAA two cousins would count as two "qualifying persons" so in that scenario an HMO licence *would* be required.

But to suggest that there is any meaningful difference in the safety of tenants because two of the three residents are cousins, or boyfriend and girlfriend, versus all three being friends, is quite frankly risible.

Note the comment above on cousins.

Your personal view does not affect the fact that any property which is to be let to 3 or more persons in Scotland has to, by law, have an HMO licence

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tbs624 wrote: »

Your personal view does not affect the fact that any property which is to be let to 3 or more persons in Scotland has to, by law, have an HMO licence

And that's not true.

Any property to be let to 3 or more unrelated persons has to have an HMO license.

I note you've repeatedly failed to explain why it is safe for a boyfriend, girlfriend and their friend to share a house, but less safe for the same three people to share a house if two of them are not having sex....

And regardless, your observation that the law exists doesn't change the fact that for 3 bed houses......

1) the law is daft, there's no reason a house with 3 people in it is safer because two of them are related or having sex with each other

2) all any tenant has to do to get away with breaking the law and still keep their tenancy intact is claim they are in a relationship with one of the other tenants

3) it is widely ignored by tenants as there are no legal ramifications for them if they break it anyway

and

4) Most local authorities are not aggressively enforcing it for 3 bedders, precisely because of 1), 2) and 3).

Poorly thought through and ineffective laws happen, and this is a classic example of one.

Rather than blindly advocating it because "it's the law", people should be noting it's absurdity and lobbying their MSP's to have it changed.

tbs624

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And that's not true.

Thanks for your response - yes, you're absolutely right - my post should clearly have reiterated that qualification. Are you now able to acknowledge that you made an error re cousins?;)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I note you've repeatedly failed to explain why it is safe for a boyfriend, girlfriend and their friend to share a house, but less safe for the same three people to share a house if two of them are not having sex....

As you'll know, the sex lives of the tenants are irrelevant in determining whether or not an HMO licence will be required. I wasn't aware that I was repeatedly "required" to answer a specific question but to help you out I refer you to my previous comment

As for Ts, the HMO regs were of course designed to make rental properties safer, especially where there are Ts who are on short term contracts and are less likely to look out for one another than members of a family unit would be in the event of a fire etc.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And regardless, your observation that the law exists doesn't change the fact that for 3 bed houses......

1) the law is daft, there's no reason a house with 3 people in it is safer because two of them are related or having sex with each other

See above. You could say that about any number of Ts in any property. If it's "daft" for 3 then why would it not be "daft" for 4, 5 or more?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

2) all any tenant has to do to get away with breaking the law and still keep their tenancy intact is claim they are in a relationship with one of the other tenants

3) it is widely ignored by tenants as there are no legal ramifications for them if they break it anyway

Why would the T be breaking the law? It is encumbent upon *the LL* to (a) get himself registered as a LL and (b) get his property registered/licensed as an HMO as the law requires

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Poorly thought through and ineffective laws happen, and this is a classic example of one.

..in your *opinion*........

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Rather than blindly advocating it because "it's the law", people should be noting it's absurdity and lobbying their MSP's to have it changed.

It's not a case of blindly advocating anything - my view is that the HMO Regs protect Ts. The fact that you view the relevant law as absurd does not guarantee that everyone else would or, indeed, should. Feel free to lobby away- some of us will be offering a counter lobby for the law to stay as it is and for Councils to make sure that LLs know that non-compliance will result in penalties being enforced.

Ts in Eng or Wales can of course recoup their rental payments when a LL fails to obtain HMO licensing......