What are the implications of being a permitted occupier?

Dimey

If you go the route discussed, then you could write a notice period into your lodger agreement with your two friends.

I guess they would want it to be only a week in case there are problems down the line.

They in turn would have whatever notice period is in their lease with the landlord.

If you really like the place and the other two are willing then you would be going ahead knowing you may have to make a fast exit at some point.

You also wouldn't want to pay toward any decorating etc. as you have no investment in the property.

Being a lodger makes it more flexible for you if you decide to leave later. Your friends would have to consider that you need only give them the same notice period they put in your lodger agreement.

At least you know it's not illegal.
Don't let the LA bully you into paying them fees if you are just going to be the lodger and follow earlier advice about checking the lease has no restriction on lodgers.

Werdnal

franklee wrote: »

Is there an implication here people think the HMO rules twaddle?

No, the agent is talking twaddle. Rules for HMOs are good and there for a reason, agent/LL trying to circumvent them is the problem!

pmlindyloo

Werdnal wrote: »

No, the agent is talking twaddle. Rules for HMOs are good and there for a reason, agent/LL trying to circumvent them is the problem!

I can understand the rules for HMOs but I have difficulty seeing how three people sharing is any different from a family living there.

I understand that the rules were created for different scenarios where landlords were taking on multiple tenancies and providing rubbish accommodation. This explains the rules on size of rooms and the facilities to be provided.

Some of the rules, like smoke alarms/fire blankets etc should be mandatory in all rented accommodation.

This is where it seems wrong.

My understanding is that 3 or more households living in a HMO does not need to be licensed (where the rules are much stricter). When it is an unlicensed HMO the only difference to an ordinary tenancy seems to be the provision of smoke alarms (ie. the fire safety aspect) Now that is a little strange.

I rather suspect that the OP's potential accommodation is in a local authority that has chose to license all HMOs (which they apparently can do - a money spinner?) and are enforcing quite stringent rules.

Would be good to know which authority this is. There might be a chance that the LL/LA have got their information wrong and it is not a licensed HMO and all he needs to do is meet the fire safety 'rules'.

franklee

pmlindyloo wrote: »

My understanding is that 3 or more households living in a HMO does not need to be licensed (where the rules are much stricter). When it is an unlicensed HMO the only difference to an ordinary tenancy seems to be the provision of smoke alarms (ie. the fire safety aspect) Now that is a little strange.

I rather suspect that the OP's potential accommodation is in a local authority that has chose to license all HMOs (which they apparently can do - a money spinner?) and are enforcing quite stringent rules.

Would be good to know which authority this is. There might be a chance that the LL/LA have got their information wrong and it is not a licensed HMO and all he needs to do is meet the fire safety 'rules'.

This is the point I've been pondering. I know next to nought about HMOs or fire safety but presumably the rules are there for a reason? Perhaps related occupiers are more aware of the whereabouts of the others so will alert them to a fire? Perhaps it's based on statistics of fires and injuries? Also I thought fire safety goes further than smoke alarms (which arguably everyone should have anyway). I thought it was fire doors, exits etc. which may be major structural changes in some properties. If it was just smoke alarms there would be no need for the LL/agent to cheat as that would be fixed by forty quid or so.

However the suggestions on the thread of how the OP could get round it leads me to think most posters aren't concerned about the safety aspects ...

OP why not ring up the council, have a chat, see what the issues really are.

fd101

Hi All, thank you so much for taking the time to reply.

FYI it's Bournemouth Borough Council.

Of course I want to live somewhere that is safe and regulations for this are great. But I'm getting the impression from this round of house hunting that this rule is just the council's way of controlling who gets to live where. I completely understand people in a nice suburb don't want to be taken over by student lets etc, but it is making it virtually impossible for 3 professionals in their 30s to find a nice home in a nice area!

Hoping to get a chance to call the council this week and find out what the deal is.

Thanks again, :-)

Yorkie1

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I can understand the rules for HMOs but I have difficulty seeing how three people sharing is any different from a family living there.

Parking, for a start. Three separate people (or even three separate couples) are highly likely to take up more parking spaces than a single household.

Repeat this in a high proportion of houses in a street, and it soon becomes impossible to get parked.

Also, my experience of Article 4 (?) areas is that frequently HMOs are not looked after externally as well as family houses e.g. gardens, refuse.

(I do not live in such an area, but I do live in a University town where the evidence is pretty obvious).

I agree that one impact of a direction is to restrict the available housing for non-students, which is unfortunate for those non-students.