HMO / lodger question

James_Green_1982

One of my relatives rents a room in a 4 bedroom house. The house is a 'standard' two floor house (ie ground floor and first floor). One bedroom is downstairs, 3 bedrooms upstairs (first floor). No loft conversion or cellar etc.

The landlord (house owner) has one bedroom. The other 3 bedrooms are let out to single occupants. So there are 4 people living there, including the landlord. They all share bathroom and kitchen. No en-suite bathrooms. But they do have locks on their bedroom doors. ie locks that can be locked when they are out (not just lockable when inside the room).

My relative says that he is a lodger. He paid one month's rent as a deposit - not put into any protected scheme - just a hand written receipt from the landlord.

I told my relative that I think this house is an HMO. But we weren't sure if he could be a lodger in an HMO - or are all HMO residents (apart from the LL) actually tenants?

00ec25

the existence of a lock does not make him a tenant

he lives in an HMO (shares basic facilities, toilet & kitchen) with the LL. That has little or no relevance to him other than if he wishes to make an issue of what, if any , safety features the council requires present - eg: fire alarms, fire doors, means of escape etc

whether he has exclusive possession of his room, and therefore would be a tenant, is down to what his written agreement says: I bet 1000-1 anything in writing is not so stupid as to say that, and therefore he is a lodger with no legal requirement for his deposit to be registered in a protection scheme

James_Green_1982

00ec25 wrote: »

the existence of a lock does not make him a tenant

he lives in an HMO (shares basic facilities, toilet & kitchen) with the LL. That has little or no relevance to him other than if he wishes to make an issue of what, if any , safety features the council requires present - eg: fire alarms, fire doors, means of escape etc

whether he has exclusive possession of his room, and therefore would be a tenant, is down to what his written agreement says: I bet 1000-1 anything in writing is not so stupid as to say that, and therefore he is a lodger with no legal requirement for his deposit to be registered in a protection scheme

Thanks.
He has no written agreement at all.
The only documentation he has is the handwritten receipt for his month's rent in advance (which is also his deposit).

So residents in an HMO can be lodgers or tenants?
The lock is a 'deadlock' type with a key. So if he's out, the landlord can gain entry to his room (because the LL has a spare key for each room). But if he is in his room, he can leave his key in the lock so the LL cannot enter.

phillw

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

I told my relative that I think this house is an HMO. But we weren't sure if he could be a lodger in an HMO - or are all HMO residents (apart from the LL) actually tenants?

https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/houses-in-multiple-occupation

http://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/houses_in_multiple_occupation_hmo

James_Green_1982

Thanks for the replies.
I didn't know whether such a house was still classified as an HMO if the LL was resident.

So am I right to deduce that by remaining resident in one of the rooms, the LL can prevent the other occupants gaining 'tenant' status - but cannot excuse himself of the HMO licensing and fire regulations etc?

zagubov

He could be a lodger with a lockable room (as the landlord will have a spare key to the room and will forbid the occupiers to fit their own).

If it's an HMO I hope all is set up to agree with local council rules. If there is a local authority cap where you can't exceed a certain number of occupants and the landlord exceeds that, one of the lodgers may have to move.

James_Green_1982

zagubov wrote: »

He could be a lodger with a lockable room (as the landlord will have a spare key to the room and will forbid the occupiers to fit their own).

If it's an HMO I hope all is set up to agree with local council rules. If there is a local authority cap where you can't exceed a certain number of occupants and the landlord exceeds that, one of the lodgers may have to move.

My relative says he checked the local council's website register and his home was not listed as a licensed HMO on there.

anselld

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

My relative says he checked the local council's website register and his home was not listed as a licensed HMO on there.

Yes, as others have said it is an HMO and he is a lodger. They are separate issues.

Lodgers deposits do not need to be protected.

Not all HMOs need to be licensed. Mandatory licensing only applies to 5+ beds. However there may be local schemes in place to extend this (additional or selective licensing).

So what is he trying to prove? Is there actually a problem or is he trying to create one?

James_Green_1982

anselld wrote: »

Yes, as others have said it is an HMO and he is a lodger. They are separate issues.

Lodgers deposits do not need to be protected.

Not all HMOs need to be licensed. Mandatory licensing only applies to 5+ beds. However there may be local schemes in place to extend this (additional or selective licensing).

So what is he trying to prove? Is there actually a problem or is he trying to create one?

Thanks for your reply.
There are a few issues, but I wanted to confirm the tenancy status.

G_M

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

My relative says he checked the local council's website register and his home was not listed as a licensed HMO on there.

More to the point, should it be listed there? That depends on the local rules.

But yes, the two issues are seperate>

* an HMO depends on the number /type of residents in separate family units etc.

* tenancy/lodger status (broadly) depends on occupation by the landlord, Vs 'exclusive occupation'.

zagubov

It would be very public-spirited of your relative to bring the multiple occupancy of the house to the council's attention.

Unfortunately, as a lodger, if the council decided the house was over-occupied and somebody needs to move out, your well-meaning relative wouldn't have much option but to leave if he had the misfortune to be the one chosen to find somewhere else.

He needs to make sure there's no chance of that happening before he does his civic duty. It's very brave to saw off the treebranch he's sitting on.