House in Multiple Occupation?

omissimo1

Hi everyone,

I'm having some problems with an apartment I used to rent and I'm trying to understand when a property is considered a Home in Multiple Occupation or 'HMO'.

From my research, I have found that - “If the property is shared with other people who have separate tenancy agreements to live in the property, the property may be considered to be a house in multiple occupation. This means the landlord/owner will be responsible for paying the council tax and not the tenants.”

However, I'm finding it difficult to get a clear answer. I've been in touch with the council who were most unhelpful.

When I moved into the property the landlord presented to me as being one apartment, Third Floor Flat, divided into to two, E & F with shared bills, we shared water and council tax although we had separate tenancy agreements. This was the situation with the previous tenant also.

Does anyone know if this constitutes a 'HMO'?

Thanks in advance!

Omissimo

lincroft1710

At the time of your occupation what was the accommodation of E and the accommodation of F

WeAreGhosts

Usually HMOs are those in which people share a bathroom and kitchen. Do you have your own postal address - i.e. Flat E, Third Floor, 1 West Street etc ...?

Oops, just seen you're sharing council tax. This would be considered a HMO. Whether it's legal or not is another matter ....

CIS

From my research, I have found that - “If the property is shared with other people who have separate tenancy agreements to live in the property, the property may be considered to be a house in multiple occupation. This means the landlord/owner will be responsible for paying the council tax and not the tenants.”

The full definition can be found via the council tax (liability for owners) regs 1992 (as amended):

“Houses in multiple occupation, etc

Class C a dwelling which

(a)was originally constructed or subsequently adapted for occupation by persons who do not constitute a single household;

or

(b)is inhabited by a person who, or by two or more persons each of whom either—

(i)is a tenant of, or has a licence to occupy, part only of the dwelling; or

(ii)has a licence to occupy, but is not liable (whether alone or jointly with other persons) to pay rent or a licence fee in respect of, the dwelling as a whole.”.

If the property meets the above definition then the owner is always liable for the council, as per the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

If each property was self contained then there's a good chance that the Valuation Office should have assessed them as individual properties and split the house accordingly. The council may make them aware of it although they may well not backdate any banding change.

PasturesNew

Sharing bills doesn't indicate an HMO.

What services/rooms did you share with others? Did you have your own bedroom? En-suite? Own kitchenette?

CIS

PasturesNew wrote: »

Sharing bills doesn't indicate an HMO.

What services/rooms did you share with others? Did you have your own bedroom? En-suite? Own kitchenette?

There's more info here - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5459960 - which changes the situation somewhat.

CIS

Unless you're in Scotland then the council have no say in the property banding - it's done by the valuation office agency. If the valuation office agency re-band a property then the council are legally required to amend and issue council tax notices as needed.

The banding of the property would need to be appealed with the valuation office on the basis it should be one large property before you can look at the HMO side of it.

omissimo1

CIS wrote: »

If each property was self contained then there's a good chance that the Valuation Office should have assessed them as individual properties and split the house accordingly. The council may make them aware of it although they may well not backdate any banding change.

This is exactly what happened. The landlord prevented us from trying to get the property banded individually as I believe he didn't have the proper planning permission. (It was also set up this way with the previous tenants who lived there for 3 years). Some time after I moved out the VO re-banded the property, refunded my 'neighbour' and then back dated charges to me.

The two things I'm trying to solve are;

1. Should the landlord have been paying the CT if it is a HMO?
2. Getting my money back from the 'neighbour' through small claims

lincroft1710

If the VOA rebanded it as 2 dwellings and backdated the effective date to at least the date you first occupied your flat, it is clearly not a HMO.

omissimo1

lincroft1710 wrote: »

If the VOA rebanded it as 2 dwellings and backdated the effective date to at least the date you first occupied your flat, it is clearly not a HMO.

I don't think it is clear, hence asking the question. If the property wasn't separated properly by the landlord, even though he claims it to be 2 separate dwellings, it doesn't mean that it is.

booksurr

omissimo1 wrote: »

1. Should the landlord have been paying the CT if it is a HMO?

irrelevant, it has now been banded as separate dwellings so each of you are liable for your own flat, not the LL

omissimo1 wrote: »

2. Getting my money back from the 'neighbour' through small claims

as already stated you can but take him to court on the basis of the evidence you hold