Urgent Help - Houses in Multiple Occupation

Pixie5740

I did read your post and then re-read it as there's a lot of information to take in.

Who is on the tenancy agreement for these periods? What are the start and end dates of these tenancies?

Are both people names on a joint tenancy, are there two separate tenancies, is one person on the tenancy and the other a lodger?

The LL doesn't seem to have a clue as to who is living in the property and when.

Mrs_Constant_Worry

Have amended my post - thank you and sorry for making it sound so confusing.

00ec25

Mrs_Constant_Worry wrote: »

If a tenant (who had been sole occupant) now invites a friend who had an accident to come and stay so he could help him with care and hospital visits. This friend had to go on disability benefit as he had an accident at work. Sole occupant tenant did ask Landlord if it was OK for friend to stay so he could help look after him and he agreed. (Landlord new to renting and HMO regulations but is now.)

So it was accepted that rates would have to be paid for by L/Lord for the period the 2nd tenant stayed there. A tenancy agreement was requested and L/Lord supplied one knowing that as soon as accommodation suited disability needs came up then he would go which he has done after 15 months.

Question - After reading earlier posts could they have had a Joint Tenancy? Thus stopping the HMO terms and landlord paying council tax.

the council tax regulations define a LL's liability for CT on an HMO in terms of what tenancy each person has and has been tested in court to clarify the implications of the existence of a single (ie joint) tenancy agreement but where two or more tenants each pay "their share" of the rent to the LL
http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2010/07/30/council-tax-in-hmos/

this legal precedent (since it was a High Court case) means that at the point in time you issue a joint tenancy you as LL cease to be liable for the CT and your tenants become liable instead under the hierarchy of liability

as discussed earlier in this thread it would be possible to switch from individual tenancies to a joint tenancy at any time and so remove the council tax HMO status, but this would not alter the fact it would remain an HMO under the Housing Act . Obviously that would be a significant rise in costs for the tenants so their agreement to switch at a later date just so the LL can save money on paying CT does not make much sense for the tenants!

Mrs_Constant_Worry wrote: »

Just a thought -

After reading this post can it be cost effective for a council to pay for two sets of separate accommodation and two sets of council tax in different properties, rather than allowing a Landlord have two benefit tenants non-related who are happy to share accomodation and thus only one set of Council Tax paid for by benefits and not the landlord?

CT is a bill on property not on people so I don't see your point as separate accommodation will always mean separate bills. Of course it is cheaper if the benefits bill is covering only one set of council tax because the two people are living in only one property

alexcos

I have a portfolio of 15 houses in North London. The local council has just introduced additional HMO licensing whereby small HMOs like mine i.e 3 or 4 sharers in a 2 storey house will need to be licensed.

I purchased my properties all using normal BTL mortgages and the problem i have is that if i continue to rent the houses as i am doing to small sharers, i will be in breach of the HMO law and could face a large fine of to £25K, however if i do the work to make it a HMO and apply for a HMO license, this will inform my existing mortgage lender and i will be in a breach of mortgage, due to the council writing to my lender advising them that a license has been applied for. So i am stuck as what to do with my portfolio now...

i understand that most HMO lenders lend only on properties whereby there is a licence in place, but you cannot get a licence until the work is done and applied for through the council, so there seems to always be a point where you are in breach with someone. Catch 22.

I therefore see no option but to continue to rent my properties as is which are now illegal or sell up.

Is anyone else in this situation? Any advice would be very much appreciated as to how to proceed from here..?