HMO in Scotland

tbs624

Just for interest:

http://www.accommodationforstudents.com/view_landlord_guides.asp?id=73

http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/23739-landlord-caught-out-and-fined-for-failing-to-have-the-correct-licence/

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tbs624 wrote: »

As you'll know, the sex lives of the tenants are irrelevant in determining whether or not an HMO licence will be required.

Not at all.

One of (although not the sole, granted) the key determinants through which a couple could establish they are in a bona-fide relationship to qualify as a family unit would be whether or not they engage in "marital relations" as it used to be called.

So I'll ask again, why is a house with three adults living in it safer if two of them are having sex?

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?

I previously answered that....

It's obviously a different scenario entirely if you have a 5 bed or 7 bed house full of 7 unrelated students, who may all bring home a girlfriend/boyfriend or have mates over at the weekend.

Under that scenario, you could easily enough have 10 or even 15 people sleeping in a house at times. Obviously under those circumstances there are good reasons for preventing such a house in some areas, and it just makes sense for landlords to have to install commercial grade fire alarms, smoke detection, push bar exits, etc, if a license for that is to be granted.

But equally, in practical terms it makes no difference to neighbours, the council, the tenants safety, or anything else if a 3 bedroom flat is occupied by a parent, adult child, and a friend, a brother and sister and a friend, a couple and a friend, or three friends.

Yet one of those four scenarios requires a few thousands pounds of work to the house and a red tape jungle to navigate for a license, and the other three do not.

Madness really....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tbs624 wrote: »

my view is that the HMO Regs protect Ts.

Yes, that is your *opinion*, and here's why you're wrong.

Example:

-A married couple and their friend rent a 3 bed house. The landlord does not have to get an HMO license.

-The friends girlfriends moves in, so now there are four people in two couples. The landlord still does not have to get an HMO license.

-The girlfriend and boyfriend break up, and she moves into the spare room. Now the landlord has to spend thousands on an HMO license. Despite the same 4 people living in the same house.

-She moves out and the one of the married couples brother moves in. Now the landlord does not need an HMO license again, despite 4 people living in the house.

-Now the married couple move out, and a friend moves in. So the landlord needs an HMO license again, despite fewer people living in the house as it drops from 4 to 3.

Kindly explain to me why tenant safety changes because of whether or not the boyfriend and girlfriend are having sex?

Or why it's safer to have two couples living in a house rather than three friends?

Or why it's safer to have a couple, a brother, and a friend living in the house rather than 3 friends?

We can all support HMO laws when they make sense, but in this regard this law is absurd. Which is why it's widely ignored at the 3 bed level.

theartfullodger

HMO regulations were started in bonnie Scotland after, IIRC, a terrible case of a fire in Glasgow. See..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_in_multiple_occupation

HMO licensing was first introduced in Scotland in 2000. To be granted a licence under the scheme, properties must meet certain standards, such as presence of smoke detectors and fire doors.These provisions were included in response to a fatal fire at a student flat in Glasgow, which had no working smoke detectors, and metal bars preventing escape through a window.

HMO schemes have been subsequently introduced to other parts of the UK,....

In my opinion quite right & I think Scotland has the balance on HMO better than Ingerlund.

If you go into business you accept the rules & laws ruling. You might not like them. If you really object, try another business or another country.

Nobody is forcing anyone Hamish to be a private landlord of a HMO in Scotland or anywhere else.

I do grant, however, explaining to (say.. as I have ..) 3 bright-eyed and apparently OK unrelated male students that you can't offer them the place as you are unlicensed gets looks of suspicion/doubt/b***ard he's lying....

That other landlords cheat, ignore laws, act dangerously is not a surprise & IMHO all decent tenants & landlords should shop the b****ards...

England could learn from Scotland on HMO, Landlord registration, PRHP, Homelessness & S11. Scotland could learn from England on something I'm sure.. England learnt from Scotland and introduced HMO licensing later..

For the avoidance of doubt I am not Scottish, sadly.

tbs624

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, that is your *opinion*, and here's why you're wrong.

Just a reminder that I clearly said " my view is that the HMO Regs protect Ts." Equally clearly, the lawmakers are of the same opinion.

Your own posts unfortunately(and repeatedly) state your opinions dressed up as fact. We are all entitled to hold our own opinions and also to robustly defend them. However masquerading behind a veneer of apparent "fact" is something else altogether. I think the term Bovine Manure covers it.

theartfullodger

Hammy: You clearly know the rules and disagree with them. Do you operate an unlicensed HMO - I'm sure you're not shy and will tell us..

Read hear about an unlicensed HMO landlord being fined & struck off being allowed to rent to anyone.
http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/108942-edinburgh-landlord-struck-off-for-failing-to-provide-correct-licence/

HMO non-compliance fine now up to £50k.. I think the rent can be returned to tenants also..

Cheers!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

theartfullodger wrote: »

Hammy: You clearly know the rules and disagree with them. Do you operate an unlicensed HMO - I'm sure you're not shy and will tell us..!

Nice try.

Not only do I not operate an HMO, I don't even have any BTL's at all.

But I do recognise the absurdity of bad laws, and comment appropriately when I see them.

Of course, for landlords such as yourself, this must be a dream come true.

By virtually eliminating most 3 bed flats/houses from the shared rental market, demand for all the cheaper to buy 2 and 1 bedders is pushed up.

Increasing rents and yields on the very properties you can pick up at bargain basement prices thanks to the mortgage famine preventing most potential FTB-s from buying.

It's quite obvious why you love these absurd laws... :cool:

Mojisola

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But I do recognise the absurdity of bad laws, and comment appropriately when I see them.

This is the way I feel.

The LL does keep up all the standard safety things - gas checked, etc. I think it's mainly the fire doors that are missing.

My relative will be leaving the three bedroom house that three responsible adults have been sharing. One of the other tenants was already planning to move on and now the third one will have to leave as well.

The house will presumably now be let to a family which could consist of any combination of adults and children. I don't see why things like fire doors are considered essential for the three adults but the house is safe without them for a family to live in.

I do understand that tenants need protection from bad LLs but this seems to be an area where there needs to be some common sense involved. Perhaps the law could be adapted so that particular situations could go before a decision maker who could say whether that particular property needed a licence or not.

tbs624

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nice try.

Not only do I not operate an HMO, I don't even have any BTL's at all.

But I do recognise the absurdity of bad laws, and comment appropriately when I see them.

Appropriately? Your comments are simply your opinion on a topic on which you seem to have little actual knowledge or relevant experience.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Of course, for landlords such as yourself, this must be a dream come true.

By virtually eliminating most 3 bed flats/houses from the shared rental market, demand for all the cheaper to buy 2 and 1 bedders is pushed up.

My bolding. "virtually eliminating"? Any good source for your assertion? There are still plenty of 3 bed HMOs available in Scotland because conscientious LLs are still able to make a profit by running them and getting the required license/achieving the appropriate standards to do so.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Increasing rents and yields on the very properties you can pick up at bargain basement prices thanks to the mortgage famine preventing most potential FTB-s from buying.

Think through what you have said - "demand for all the cheaper to buy 2 and 1 bedders is pushed up" and " the very properties that you can pick up at bargain basement prices" . If demand for such properties is high, more LLs would be competing to buy them which in itself pushes prices up.

tbs624

Mojisola wrote: »

This is the way I feel.

The LL does keep up all the standard safety things - gas checked, etc. I think it's mainly the fire doors that are missing.

Pretty major omission for a property let to unrelated Ts

Mojisola wrote: »

My relative will be leaving the three bedroom house that three responsible adults have been sharing. One of the other tenants was already planning to move on and now the third one will have to leave as well.

The house will presumably now be let to a family which could consist of any combination of adults and children. I don't see why things like fire doors are considered essential for the three adults but the house is safe without them for a family to live in.

Because families are more likely to look out for one another and be aware of each other's comings and goings than several house sharers who are on short term contracts and may only recently have met one another.

As Artful has already stated, HMO rules are intended to (amongst other things such as preventing overcrowding) cut down on death and injury caused by fire in shared properties

Ts should always check with the local Council what their area licensing rules are and then check whether a potential new home does in fact have the necessary license in place, prior to signing up for any tenancy. The HMO registers are publicly available for precisely that purpose. Had your relative done this they would not find themselves in their current predicament.

I do understand that tenants need protection from bad LLs but this seems to be an area where there needs to be some common sense involved. Perhaps the law could be adapted so that particular situations could go before a decision maker who could say whether that particular property needed a licence or not.

I suspect that such a procedure would turn out to be equally time consuming and expensive.

The following example indicates that there *is* some common sense involved:

"The Highland Council has established these standards as a means of providing a reasonable benchmark for Houses in Multiple Occupation. Nevertheless, because houses in multiple occupation may differ there is provision for an applicant for a licence to seek exemption from, or relaxation of, a standard. Such an application should be made in writing to the Area Solicitor and should specify the grounds on which the application is made. Applicants for licence should also examine the Council’s Standard Licence Conditions for HMO’s to determine whether they might wish to seek a relaxation or exemption in respect of any of those.)