HMO

[K.K.]

I've been told that if I let my house out to a group of people on a joint tenancy instead of separate tenancies, it does not count as an HMO no matter how many people live there. Is this correct?

[sharon@thebondboard]

There was a case about 10 years ago involving Sheffield City Council when a ruling was made that any group (the case in point was students) up to 6 that shared a property as a single tenancy would be seen as a household, rather than a HMO. Certainly my own local authority, Bolton, would take it the same way. To ensure this was a correct classification, the group should present together for accommodation. Important point is that a HMO is required to have a higher level of fire safety than a single household. Good practice would be to ensure that fire safety is of a comparable standard to what is required for a HMO. Sharon from the Bond Board, Bolton.

[red40]

It isn't correct KK, it doesn't matter how many people you put on an AST. The definition of a HMO was changed to take into account the scenario that Sharon states, which I think is Barnes vs Sheffield. The definition of a HMO is now detailed and complex, and one of the factors is that only one person has to pay rent or another consideration. For the purposes of mandatory licensing the property has to be occupied by a minimum of 5 persons, 3 storey or more and in two separate households.

The definition of a household is that there must be some type of 'family' relationship to be classed as one household, if you have 6 people who are unrelated you would have 6 persons and 6 different households.

Hope that helps?

[Matthew]

I'm not sure about your comment Red.

What you're saying would mean three friends renting a property with a joint tenancy agreement would be classed as an HMO, not licencable, but an HMO all the same. In that case about 75% of landlords would probably have 'HMO's and therefore be breaking their mortgage agreements.

Also with most councils, they make the landlord pay the council tax for HMO's, so the council tax would not be the tenants liability even if stated that it was in the contract.

I did read somewhere that an HMO was three or more groups of people who don't know each other. IS this correct?

I've got to admit everybody (mortgage companies, IFAs etc) seems obsessed with saying rent to a family only. Why would families really want to rent? If they can afford to buy they would and if not they can have a council house for about a third of the rent if they say they are homeless. I really don't know if there is a market for 4 bed houses for families, and most would only be very short term, so why do they insist upon these things which don't really exist.

Lenders really need to get with the times.

[red40]

Thats correct Matthew you would have a HMO by definition and yes plenty of landlords are breaking their mortgage terms and conditions. Which is apparent when councils notify a mortgage company when a landlord applies for a mandatory HMO licence.

Refer to HA2004, schedule 14(7) for building which are not HMO's, anything above this is classed as a HMO unless they are exempt by, I think schedule 14(2).

Three or more groups of people is in correct. HA2004 now refers to persons and households only, nothing to do with AST's or any other agreements.