Case Summary:

 Title: Sheffield City Council v Barnes (1995) 

Court of Appeal.   Definition of an HMO - 09 May 1995

Summary: The case concerned a two-storey house shared by five students.Sheffield city council had ordered the owners of a terraced house occupied by five female students to install fire escapes and other fire precautions. The owners refused, arguing that their property was not an HMO, so the council had no powers to insist on the improvements.  Court decided that it was a single household and not an HMO because of the circumstances of the letting.

Graeme and Carole Barnes, two Yorkshire landlords rented out a two-storey house in Crookesmore Road, Sheffield to students.  The house was normally rented to four or five students sharing as a group.

Sheffield City Council had decided it was effectively a collection of flatlets and made an order to Mr and Mrs Barnes to make expensive alterations to meet safety regulations.The Barneses argued that the occupants formed a single group tenancy and a court judge agreed with them.  The decision has now been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The tenants had come to the house as one group and except in one case, had joint tenancies.  Mr and Mrs Barnes would only let to a group, not individuals.  The occupants shared facilities including the sitting room; they were responsible for the whole house, not just their own rooms; and individual rooms did not have locks on the doors.  The tenants were responsible for the filling of vacancies when they arose and also the allocation of rooms.

Sheffield Council served a notice requiring alterations to the house in May 1992.  Mr & Mrs Barnes subsequently installed fire extinguishers but argued that other alterations were unnecessary.The Judge referred to nine factors which may be helpful in determining whether a house is an HMO.

HELD: Despite the fact that the students pursued entirely separate life styles, the court decided that it was a single household and not a house of multiple occupancy, because the students shared the facilities, had signed similar tenancy agreements, shared responsibility for cleaning and did not have locks on their doors.
The court decided that this house was in fact not a "house in multiple occupation" and as a consequence, the council could not enforce its notice requiring, among other matters, additional fire precautions to be installed.

Application for leave to appeal to House of Lords refused.

LUJ Ref: Oct 1995, p24. apr 96 p17