The Lemon Fool

Recent discussion with pals raised a question with lodgers and HMOs.

A friends son had been in living in a house with two pals for over a year, the house was owned by the parents of one of the pals. The three pals shared all the bills and it was all very amicable.

For arguments sake does this arrangement fall under lodgings or HMO?

pancake101 wrote:Recent discussion with pals raised a question with lodgers and HMOs.

A friends son had been in living in a house with two pals for over a year, the house was owned by the parents of one of the pals. The three pals shared all the bills and it was all very amicable.

For arguments sake does this arrangement fall under lodgings or HMO?

Your home is a house in multiple occupation (HMO) if both of the following apply:

at least 3 tenants live there, forming more than 1 household
you share toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities with other tenants

..

A household is either a single person or members of the same family who live together. A family includes people who are:

married or living together - including people in same-sex relationships
relatives or half-relatives, for example grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings
step-parents and step-children

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/hous ... occupation

So - I think so, yes, it's an HMO

chas49 wrote:So - I think so, yes, it's an HMO

But if the property was owned by the son, then there'd only be 2 tenants, and so it wouldn't be a HMO.

Both my sons operate HMOs but the effect of it varies by council, in terms of licensing, inspections etc.

One is in Southwark, which probably has the tightest rules around HMO's. The other is in Devon and that council hardly any rules.

Lootman wrote:

chas49 wrote:So - I think so, yes, it's an HMO

But if the property was owned by the son, then there'd only be 2 tenants, and so it wouldn't be a HMO.

But the property in the OP is not owned by the son but, anyway, the now archived guide included:

A group of people who are not all members of the same family living in the same building will form more than one household.

I make that 3 households based on the OP, if the facilities were shared.

I think that is were it got a bit fuzzy - it was the sons family home - so whilst he did not own it - it was where he had always lived.

From the little I know HMOs seem to be cold and clinical and purely a business - whilst the premise for this scenario was that son stayed at home but shared with a two pals to cover costs and keep the house occupied as parents were to be away for a year or more.

I am sure legally speaking when you get 3 people unrelated living in a house - then its a HMO even if they have known each other for 20 years!

Perhaps it may have even started with son and one pal living in the house - all good, then later another friend joined them as there was a third bedroom thus becoming an unlicensed HMO! Done without so much as a thought to those details.

pancake101 wrote:I think that is were it got a bit fuzzy - it was the sons family home - so whilst he did not own it - it was where he had always lived.

From the little I know HMOs seem to be cold and clinical and purely a business - whilst the premise for this scenario was that son stayed at home but shared with a two pals to cover costs and keep the house occupied as parents were to be away for a year or more.

I am sure legally speaking when you get 3 people unrelated living in a house - then its a HMO even if they have known each other for 20 years!

Perhaps it may have even started with son and one pal living in the house - all good, then later another friend joined them as there was a third bedroom thus becoming an unlicensed HMO! Done without so much as a thought to those details.

So, was the son actually a tenant? He might just be a licensee! IF he signed a tenancy agreement in the same terms as the "pals", then presumably it is/was an HMO. Leaving aside the fact of the parents living away temporarily, and the pals sharing costs, if he had stayed there on his own, he wouldn't automatically be a tenant I believe.

A property with 3 households may or may not be a HMO.

It depends how the arrangement is structured

So if you have non-resident landlord renting to an individual who lives in the property, who then sublets to two others, it isn't a HMO.
(This is covered by the "resident landlord's household + two lodgers" exemption)

If the same property is let by a non-resident landlord to 3 individuals, then it IS a HMO.

https://nationalhmonetwork.com/what-is- ... xemptions/

Note that (IMHO) this is only relevant when looking at a single dwelling unit which itself is not contained in a HMO - I don't think you can have a HMO within a HMO...

PochiSoldi

chas49 wrote:So, was the son actually a tenant? He might just be a licensee! ...

I'm easily confused in this area but please explain why it makes a difference if the son was a tenant or a licensee. I thought it was occupation that is relevant. Assuming he was never a resident landlord [Edit: see Pochi's post above which I missed whilst submitting].

The pre October 2018 now archived Guidance is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... chived.pdf

I'm not sure we hold sufficient information to establish if the property was an HMO that needed Mandatory Licensing:

3.1 Which HMOs must be licensed?

Mandatory HMO licensing applies across England to all HMOs of three or more storeys and occupied by five or more persons forming more than one household.

That being for a "large" HMO.

It would depend on the Local Authority as to whether or not additional HMO licensing was applicable, if the property were not a "large" version?

It may have been an HMO but not subject to mandatory or additional licensing.

I may well have this all wrong.

PinkDalek wrote:

chas49 wrote:So, was the son actually a tenant? He might just be a licensee! ...

I'm easily confused in this area but please explain why it makes a difference if the son was a tenant or a licensee. I thought it was occupation that is relevant. Assuming he was never a resident landlord [Edit: see Pochi's post above which I missed whilst submitting].

I agree we don't have enough information to answer this properly. It's probably academic anyway as I think the OP is asking about occupation by people who don't now live there...

The gov.uk page I quoted earlier (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14851&p=182734#p182688) refers to "tenants" whereas the guidance you quote doesn't. Presumably the Housing Act is clearer, but I'll leave to anyone still interested to look that up