A question about HMO's

Wings

I own several properties, the first 5 flats in one block, all with their own front doors sharing one communal door, this is not a HMO.

Another property set out as 7 beds on 3 floors, this is a HMO property.

Another property set out as 7 beds on TWO floors, this is NOT a HMO property.

The second and third properties differ because the number of floors, with a three floor property falling under the HMO legislation.

Flats with their own entrance doors presently do not fall under the HMO, although the last government gave local councils wider powers, including in some instances powers to impose planning permission for new HMOs.

red40

Milarky wrote: »

we're are not an HMO because 'and' less than two-thirds does not apply - so section (2) does not apply and we can send the safety officer packing...

You are correct in one instance that it wouldn't fall under the definition of a HMO. However that doesnt stop a local authority using part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 to implement 'changes', as with the fire officer who can use his powers under the Regulatory Reform Order to implement changes to the communal areas.

Part 1 of the above act can be applied to any residential property in England, so be wary!

Hope that helps

red40

Wings wrote: »

Another property set out as 7 beds on TWO floors, this is NOT a HMO property.


Flats with their own entrance doors presently do not fall under the HMO, although the last government gave local councils wider powers, including in some instances powers to impose planning permission for new HMOs.

If the above property is rented and not purpose built you may find it is a HMO, a HMO can be a storey building if occupied by more than 2 persons in 2 households renting.

As with flats with their own entrances, as long as its purpose built its not a HMO. However if it is a converted building that doesn't 'comply' with the 1991 Building Regs and/or has less than two thirds owner occupiers, again it would fall under the HMO definition, so be careful about the under standing of HMO legislation.

The planning legislation was introduced by an over zealous labour government, however this was revised by Grant Snapps once Con/Lib got into power. http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/newsroom/1617158

hope that helps

oldestgnome

Op - sorry to hijack your thread!

Wings - red40 is right - a two storey seven bed property is a HMO, it is is not whether it is two or three floors that decides if it is a HMO - it is how many people, how they are related and what amenities they share:

An HMO is a building or part of building (flat) which is

a) Occupied by more than one household

AND

b) At least one of the households shares or lacks access to a basic amenity ("basic amenities" means a toilet; personal washing facilities; or cooking facilities)

The main difference between a two and three storey HMO is that a two storey seven bed HMO is not licensable whereas a three storey seven bed one is.

Your local council will have information on their website about the local standards for a two storey HMO with regards to fire safety and amenity provision. The standards are lower than a three storey HMO because the risks are considered lower. You are probably already familiar with the HMO Management Regulations 2006 these will also apply.

Milarky

red40 wrote: »

You are correct in one instance that it wouldn't fall under the definition of a HMO. However that doesnt stop a local authority using part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 to implement 'changes', as with the fire officer who can use his powers under the Regulatory Reform Order to implement changes to the communal areas.

Part 1 of the above act can be applied to any residential property in England, so be wary!

[STRIKE]Are you sure[/STRIKE]?

That be here?

Housing Act 2004

1(4)In this Part “residential premises” means—

(a)a dwelling;

(b)an HMO;

(c)unoccupied HMO accommodation;

(d)any common parts of a building containing one or more flats.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/1

Fire safety law and guidance documents for business

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) came into effect in October 2006 and replaced over 70 pieces of fire safety law.
The FSO applies to all non-domestic premises in England and Wales, including the common parts of blocks of flats and houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). The law applies to you if you are:

• responsible for business premises
• an employer or self-employed with business premises
• responsible for a part of a dwelling where that part is solely used for business purposes
• a charity or voluntary organisation
• a contractor with a degree of control over any premises
• providing accommodation for paying guests

http://www.communities.gov.uk/fire/firesafety/firesafetylaw/

PART 1:
Application to premises6.—(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a)domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
PART 3
Prohibition notices
31(10) In this article, “premises” includes domestic premises other than premises consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling and article 27 (powers of inspectors) shall be construed accordingly.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1541/contents/made

Opps. Looks like they are entitled to turn up and demand to carry out an 'inspection' in anything except a 'house'. This affects literally millions of 'home-owners' (in flats) like me who might react by feeling 'got at' by the system - and yet it would have been set up in this way with the best of intentions no doubt.

This made me think about 'who writes this crap' (the language of the laws we are all meant to obey, not the legal intention itself) given reading them to any level of comprehension is no trivial task. I came across an interesting description of how this works in the US:

http://www.govtrack.us/blog/2010/03/24/who-writes-our-law/

Big Bills and the Christmas Tree
These little bills frequently never come to a vote on their own..


...staffers often refer to the end-of-the year spending bill as a “Christmas Tree” with lots of “ornaments” in the form of these smaller bills with large contingencies of support attached to make the bill more attractive.

I often thought that if I (a reasonably educated person) can't understand 'the law' as written then my MP probably can't either. But whereas my excuse is I didn't vote for any of this stuff, the same does not apply to him/her. Are we to believe that MPs (say in committee) have diligently read and understood all that legalese - that 'line-by-line' literally means that - before bringing it to a vote?

Wings

oldestgnome wrote: »

Op - sorry to hijack your thread!

Wings - red40 is right - a two storey seven bed property is a HMO, it is is not whether it is two or three floors that decides if it is a HMO - it is how many people, how they are related and what amenities they share:

An HMO is a building or part of building (flat) which is

a) Occupied by more than one household

AND

b) At least one of the households shares or lacks access to a basic amenity ("basic amenities" means a toilet; personal washing facilities; or cooking facilities)

The main difference between a two and three storey HMO is that a two storey seven bed HMO is not licensable whereas a three storey seven bed one is.

Your local council will have information on their website about the local standards for a two storey HMO with regards to fire safety and amenity provision. The standards are lower than a three storey HMO because the risks are considered lower. You are probably already familiar with the HMO Management Regulations 2006 these will also apply.

All three of the properties that I posted about have been inspected by my local council, with only the 3 floor property set out as bedsits, being registered by the council as a HMO.

The criteria appears to be the number of floors, more than two floors, and then if set out as bedsits rather than individual units/flats, the latter again not needing to be registered as HMO.

red40

Milarky wrote: »

Are you sure?

Yes, any converted or purpose built blocks of flats can be inspected by the fire service 'if' there is a communal area. The council can inspect any residential property private or rented.

red40

Wings wrote: »

All three of the properties that I posted about have been inspected by my local council, with only the 3 floor property set out as bedsits, being registered by the council as a HMO.

The criteria appears to be the number of floors, more than two floors, and then if set out as bedsits rather than individual units/flats, the latter again not needing to be registered as HMO.

Being licensed (registered) as a HMO by the council is one thing. The HMO defintion is another. A HMO can be a single storey flat occcupird by 2 or more people, as long as they arent related as per the Housing Act 2004.

Wings wrote: »

Another property set out as 7 beds on TWO floors, this is NOT a HMO property.

If the above is a converted building, s/c flats and meets the 1991 building regs then, yes, it wont be licensable (mandatory) but may still fall into the HMO definition. If its a shared house or bedsit accomm, it will fall under the HMO definition.

There are alot of landlords/agents who think that because a HMO property doesnt require a licence it falls outside the HMO definition which is completely wrong.

Wings

I believe it is still early stages, with the change in government, local council still attempting to interpretate the Act, and their interpretations being tested in the courts.

However with local councils being given more powers, and the additional costs that LLs will have to face, many LLs may simply let such a property "on block".

This all about control and revenue collecting, nothing to do with health and safety etc