Mr Shah owned a property which he rented to two tenants. The council tax was in arrears of fourteen months. The council brought a claim against Mr Shah on the basis that the property was a house in multiple occupation and Mr Shah was therefore responsible for the council tax. The magistrates found that
[...]Mr Naz let a property to joint tenants. The council alleged that the property had been let to multiple tenants as a House in Multiple Occupation and billed the landlord for the council tax as the liability rested with the landlord. The landlord appealed to a valuation tribunal claiming that the whole property had been subject to a joint tenancy at the relevant time, he produced a written tenancy agreement supporting this.
The tribunal
[...]
The landlord owned a detached bungalow with a conservatory attached to the rear of the property, which the landlord had let on a series of six annual furnished shorthold tenancies for the period of 21 October 1999 until 31 December 2007. Each assured shorthold tenancy (AST) covered the whole of the property including the conservatory. However, given that the tenants did not want to use the landlord's furniture that came with the property, it was agreed that the landlord would store it in the conservatory. Each tenant paid the landlord directly their "share" of the rent. However, the tenancy agreement provided for a single rent per month for the property of £1,200 for which each joint tenant was jointly and severally liable. The local authority had treated the property as being a single tenancy so that the tenants were liable for council tax. There was council tax outstanding, and the local authority decided to pursue the landlord for it on the basis that the property had been a house in multiple occupation (HMO) since 1 April 2002.
The landlord appealed to the Valuation Tribunal, who held that
[...]Property was used as temporary accommodation for young people. The housing group selected residents, decided how long each should stay and, when each one should leave and which room each should occupy. The average stay was three to four months. The claimant argued that the use of the properties was use as separate hostels. The Council said that that the residents lived together as a single household so the use of the property had not changed. The claimant applied for judicial review. The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court [...]
The local authority adopted a model registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985, requiring that HMOs be registered with the authority. One of the conditions for registration enabled the authority to refuse a person registration on the basis that they were "not a fit and proper person". The wording of these conditions was identical to the control provisions contained in the 1985 Act. The landlord applied for registration and was refused on the fit and proper person ground. He was told that if he wanted the house to remain in multiple occupation, he would have to appoint a suitable person to manage and then that person should make a new application on that person's behalf. The landlord appealed the local authority's decision.
HELD: The Court of Appeal
[...]Mr. Patel and his sister Ms. Patel applied for a house in multiple occupation grant in respect of works which they vertified would be let a a residence to someone who was not a member of their family. The grant was made subject to conditions restricting the occupation of the property to persons unconnected with the family. The conditions were imposed in accordance with the relevant statute.
HELD:
[...]The landlord owned a property converted into a 'hostel' with individual bedrooms and communal facilities, to which the landlord retained access. A fire, started as a result of a carelessly discarded cigarette in the communal area, spread to a neighbouring property and caused damage. The owner claimed damages on a number of grounds including nuisance, negligence and the principle of Rylands v Fletcher.
HELD: The Court of Appeal held
[...]The Borough Council served on the landlord of a property a s. 352 Housing Act 1985 notice requiring fire safety measures to be undertaken, as they considered his property to be an HMO. The landlord defended this, contending that the property was not an HMO even though there were nine rooms let to different people. The house was described by the owner as a 'private residential club' and was let out to nine young adults between 20-30. In the County Court the judge held [...]
Graeme and Carole Barnes, two Yorkshire landlords rented out a two-storey house in 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 so was a house in multiple occupancy, and served a notice requiring alterations to the house in May 1992. Mr & Mrs Barnes subsequently complied with some but argued that others (including expensive alterations to meet safety regulations) were unnecessary.
The Barneses argued that the alterations were not necessary as the occupants formed a single group and the house was therefore not in multiple occupation.
HELD: A court judge
[...]