Unlicensed HMO

humbugstock

Hi there! Hoping somebody can give me some advice.

Four of us are planning to rent a 4-bed flat in Glasgow. We were initially under the impression it was HMO-licensed, but later found it wasn't. Given the time pressure we're under, we decided to continue with our application, thinking it was not much of a risk - we've known of other people living in unlicensed HMO's without issue, and as I understand it, it's the landlord that's liable for a fine. However, we saw the lease today, and it contains this section:

The Tenants must ensure that the Let Property does not become an unlicensed "house in multiple occupation". The Tenant will be liable for reasonable costs and expenses, including if applicable, legal or court expenses, payable by the Landlord or his or her Agent as a result of the accommodation being, as a consequence of the Tenant's breach, deemed an unlicensed or unregistered "house in multiple occupation".

I'm basically trying to work out how likely this is to become an issue.

First, if the council was to send somebody round to carry out an inspection, would we be required to let them in to do it?
Second, what sort of proof would we be required to provide if we simply claimed, when questioned, that we were two couples in relationships/two couples of cousins?
Third, how likely is it that the council would bother to look into us at any point? It's not like it's a seven bed flat with twice as many folk living in it - it's only the four of us.

Comms69

I can see why the clause is there.


BUT it's not going to apply to you if you are all named on the tenancy. You didn't cause it to become unlicensed.


1:No you are not obliged to let anyone in to your home.
2: video evidence! - I jest, you don't need to do that.
3: They'll know pretty much straight away - either through electoral role, or council tax or whatnot.

humbugstock

Yeah, in hindsight it's quite obvious they'd put something like that in, beating myself up for not seeing it coming.

What if it was the case that only two of us are named on the tenancy?

Am I also right in thinking that, if we don't need to let them into the flat, then this is basically a non-issue, given that the council will not be able to properly prove anything.

Comms69

humbugstock wrote: »

Yeah, in hindsight it's quite obvious they'd put something like that in, beating myself up for not seeing it coming.

What if it was the case that only two of us are named on the tenancy?

Am I also right in thinking that, if we don't need to let them into the flat, then this is basically a non-issue, given that the council will not be able to properly prove anything.

Here's the bottom line. (yes you would be in breach if only two of you were named). The HMO licencing is for your benefit. It means the LL has to provide certain extras. e.g. extra fire safety equipment.


You not letting them in, really wont help you. Given that all LLs have to be registered in Scotland, and having an unlicensed HMO would mean they lose that license, you have to ask where else are they ignoring the laws?


Pixie know more about Scottish tenancy law than I do, so with that caveat: Landlord Licenses can be revoked without a court order. The LL is playing a very risky game!

bobbiz22

I thought it didn't need to be registered as a HMO unless there was 5+ occupants? This might have changed though.

It could be worth speaking to the citizens advice bureau for free advice...although I can see why you might not want to given the circumstances. Perhaps call them and don't mention your name etc!

They're really helpful.

davidmcn

As with many other things, councils don't really have the resources to do proactive enforcement, so the concern would be if somebody (e.g. neighbours) complain and they feel obliged to investigate. Even if the council can't prove anything, your landlord might view it as being too much hassle and choose to end your tenancy rather than apply for a licence.

davidmcn

bobbiz22 wrote: »

I thought it didn't need to be registered as a HMO unless there was 5+ occupants?

Not sure where you're thinking of but throughout Scotland it's 3+ for a licence: https://beta.gov.scot/policies/private-renting/regulation/#houses-in-multiple-occupation-licensing

humbugstock

Thanks for these responses.

It is a little concerning they appear to be cutting this corner. However, having seen the flat ourselves and spoken to the previous tenants, I'm not inclined to believe that they're cutting many more corners. I mean, I get the impression the current tenants are in the same boat as us, and they were there for two years, so they must have been happy enough. They made it to the end of their tenancy unscathed too, which gives me hope, but I'm still worried about the level of risk we'd be taking on obviously.

I'll speak to the citizens advice bureau and see if they can offer any advice, thanks for that.

Pixie5740

The landlord is letting out a 4-bedroom property to 4 individuals by the sounds of things (I assume you will all be named on the tenancy agreement) so there's no way the landlord does not know that this will be a HMO. If the landlord had let the property out to a single family who then let a bunch of waifs and strays move in then I could see how the clause might come into play.

The HMO licensing legislation is there to protect you as a tenant. The legislation is not new and your landlord will be committing a criminal offence by letting the property as a HMO without a licence from the council. Is the landlord even registered as landlord with the council?

https://www.landlordregistrationscotland.gov.uk/

It's up to you but personally I would be wary about renting a property from someone willing to cut corners. What else will the landlord scrimp on....maintenance and repairs? If the council suspect that the property is being run as an unlicensed HMO they can inspect it without giving any warning.

Pixie5740

davidmcn wrote: »

As with many other things, councils don't really have the resources to do proactive enforcement, so the concern would be if somebody (e.g. neighbours) complain and they feel obliged to investigate. Even if the council can't prove anything, your landlord might view it as being too much hassle and choose to end your tenancy rather than apply for a licence.

I wonder which of the 18 grounds for the new Private Rental Tenancies the landlord could use in those circumstances. No. 15 is a mandatory ground that covers a HMO licence being revoked but what if the landlord never had a licence to be revoked? I digress.....

davidmcn

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I wonder which of the 18 grounds for the new Private Rental Tenancies the landlord could use in those circumstances. No. 15 is a mandatory ground that covers a HMO licence being revoked but what if the landlord never had a licence to be revoked? I digress.....

The "intending to sell" one seems a remarkably easy loophole - can't see any way of policing landlords who change their mind about selling as soon as the tenant is gone.