I have made enquiries because a couple of the houses in the Council Supported Living scheme have had bills of 50% sent to the landlord on the grounds that they are houses of multiple occupation.

This has never been the case before and when I have queried why these two properties have been billed I am told that all of the properties have been billed incorrectly in the past and they are all going to be billed.

When I have queried this I am told that these properties have a landlord liability - can anyone clarify whether they are exempt dwellings or houses of multiple occupation.

Thanks

According to my housing law materials the council are wrong to give HMO status to any dwelling because it falls into a particular class, such as hostels, supported accommodation, etc.

Section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 describes a HMO as “a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household”.

In Barnes v Sheffield CC 1995 (a case where a house shared by students was classed by the court as not a HMO), Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated “(i)n my judgement it would be wrong to do what Lord Hailsham rightly said could not be done and suggest that there was a litmus test which could be applied to determine whether a house was being occupied as a single household or not. Nonetheless, I do regard these factors, in whichever order they are taken as being helpful”.

First, the origin of the tenancy. Did the occupants arrive as a single group? Is there a joint tenancy or single ones? Second, What, if any, facilities are shared? Third, who is responsible for the house as a whole in terms of cleaning and keeping it in reasonable order? Fourth, do the tenants keep locks on their bedroom doors? Fifth, who is responsible for filling vacancies, the landlord or the tenants themselves? Sixth, Who allocates the rooms, the landlord or the tenants themselves? Seventh, the size of the establishment, the bigger the establishment and the more occupants there are then the more likely that it is a HMO. Eighth, the stability of the group. Continuity of the residence of the group will be a factor. Ninth, the mode of living. How was the cooking, eating, shopping and cleaning done, separately or more communally.

Thus each case will turn on its own facts and should be investigated separately and thoroughly.

But you need to have regard to these regs too - The Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regs 1992

For Council Tax purposes, a dwelling could be classed as an HMO on these grounds, including the type of occupation it was originally constructed for.



Class C - Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO)
A HMO is any dwelling which:

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

or

• is inhabited by a person who, or two or more persons each of whom is either:
• the tenant of, or has a licence to occupy, part only of the dwelling; or
• 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.

Hi Thanks for your responses - only just got back into work after breaking a bone in my hand last week, so only just remembered the above dilemma.

The residents in a Supported Living Scheme are 'placed' by Social Services Department and my view is that I would argue that they are a single household because they share communal facilities, eat their meals together and are jointly cared for by the member(s) of staff on duty.

Does anyone share this opinion?

Given the background of supported living, I'll take a wild guess that there are individual rental agreements (probably presented as being either Assured, or Assured shorthold tenancies).

If that is the case, I don't see how the tenants can be treated as a single household.

Treating the occupants as a single household could also be inconsistent as far as entitlement to IS (SDP) is concerned too, unless all members of the household have the relevant qualifying benefits.

It may be easier just to get the landlord to pass the CT on to the tenants in the rent, where it will then be eligible for HB?

Hi Nevip, I've followed this thread from the Barnes v Sheffield CC 1995 and having answered each of the nine questions how would I expect the Authority to then decide on the Question of HMO. Which of the answers and how many answers would resolve the question. I can see I've fallen into one of those 'grey' pits. It seems to be accepted that the definition needs clarity and it is easy to either win or lose depending on what you want a HMO to be.

Hi Elaine

As I said each case will turn on its own facts and should be investigated separately and thoroughly.

Andy was quite right to remind me of the CT definitions also. Kevin says that the fact of separate tenancies militates against a common household. I agree, on its face it does and this factor might have a lot of weight attached to it. But no one factor can be determinative. Some factors may be given more weight than others depending on the circumstances of each particular case.

And that is entirely the point, each case is different and should be viewed accordingly. As the court in Barnes v Sheffield said, there is no litmus test. It may be that in the final analyis a particular case may be weak and you may struggle in argument, while another case might have real weight to its argument.

Finally, adjudicating authorities should not fall into the trap of counting factors where an outcome is decided a particular way if you have a numerical majority of factors on one side or the other. One factor may have more weight attached to it than another. How much is for the adjudicating authority to decide based on the entirety of the evidence and any case law cited to it.

Regards
Paul