FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Ricardo on August 17, 2007, 04:20:48 PM
-
Would appreciate views on this scenario, a private dwelling I have heard about recently where the owner has let it out to a single tenant, who in turn has allegedly taken in ten people to share the house with him, all 11 happen to be foreign nationality, the owner is aware of this,(he actually thought that about six people were now living in this house) is adamant that he has done nothing wrong, and that he let the house out to a single tenant, and that it is now his responsibility.
The local housing department and Environmental office are aware of the situation, the housing merely say that if the people are put out, they will help them get other accommodation, and environmental health are saying that this is operating as an HMO and their only option is to prosecute, but since this may take a long time, they are reluctant to proceed, which leaves the local fire officer with the dilemma of what to do.
Do they attempt to serve a prohibition notice on the occupier of this private dwelling, on the belief that the property is being used as an HMO, as it appears to me that this property is not being used as a single private dwelling? Or do they turn a blind eye so to speak, in the belief that it is a private dwelling where they have no powers.
I have heard that the single tenant is taking rent from the ten other tenants, and in turn the single tenant pays the house owner monthly rent.
I am trying to get more details as we speak to find out exactly what is being done about this one, I can keep you posted.
-
It is quite clear that this is not a single private dwelling as it is not a family unit living together. Therefore, the enforcers have responsibilty to enforce both the Housing Act and the RR(FS)O. Whether that is done is of course down to those respective organisations.
-
This sort of thing really needs enforcement action as it sets an example for others to avoid the implications of HMO safety requirements.
-
Not doing anything is not an option in my view. The Tenant is clearly in Breech of his Lease conditions and the Landlord coud seek legal recourse under the lease. As the Lease will no doubt be silent regarding resposibility for a FRA the Landlord could be pursued by the Fire Officer at the same time that action is taken agaist the tenant.
-
Thanks for the replies so far, forgot to mention previously this is a 2 bedroom house, Jokar can you provide more info regards to housing officials enforcing the Housing Act, as I know nothing about their powers, what can/should they enforce here?
Lawman, what do you mean by RFA?was it a slip of the finger, and should be FRA? and under what powers can the landlord be pursued by the FO, in this case? I would have thought it was the tenant here who was at fault and fully responsible?, but yet the Owner is aware of the situation so, what is he in breech of?
-
Thanks for the replies so far, forgot to mention previously this is a 2 bedroom house, Jokar can you provide more info regards to housing officials enforcing the Housing Act, as I know nothing about their powers, what can/should they enforce here?
Lawman, what do you mean by RFA?was it a slip of the finger, and should be FRA? and under what powers can the landlord be pursued by the FO, in this case? I would have thought it was the tenant here who was at fault and fully responsible?, but yet the Owner is aware of the situation so, what is he in breech of?
Yep, slip of the finger. Sorry about that.
I would agree the tenant is at fault but the landlord could have liability if he acquiesces ie knowingly permits the use of the dwelling as a HMO. The landlord could be pursued as he has failed to discharge his obligations as a Responsible Person ie someone having some control over the property. This would make it "easier" for the landlord to be persuaded to take action against the tenant due to the fact that the tenant is in breech of his lease conditions.
-
Hi Ricky
In my opinion, this premises is an HMO and it should be licensed under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
If it is an HMO it is not a domestic premises as defined in Fire Safety (Scotland) Act 2005.
Someone should act and I think it is more appropriate to use housing law in this case.
But if the housing department will not act the fire authority should use their powers. They can serve an enforcement notice or if the risk is serious they could prohibit/restrict the use.
-
The key to all this is whether or not the additional residents are paying rent.
If they arent it could be argued they are simply mates of the single tenant just 'stopping over' (rather like if you had friends round to stay at your house)
If they can craftily argue that then neither the FRA or LA can do anything about it.
It would have to proven that these residents have been in situ longer than a few days and are claiming squatters rights to discard the argument of them "merely stopping over at a friends house".
If they are paying rent the Local Authorty can issue a prohibition notice but it takes time and is not issued on the spot as it were.
When considering a prohibition the FRA must be able to prove that more than one household is living in the premises, which sometimes can be difficult, particularly if the residents are sleeping on anything other than beds or matresses (ie they might be sneaky and sleep in sleeping bags and roll up matts and stash the sleeping bags / mats in the loft when not in use)
When gathering evidence photos are generally used and if the photos only show one or two beds then a solicitor could dispute the claim that more than one household is living there.
SO you do have to be very careful. Clearly if the landlord admits these people have been on the premsies thats a different matter.
Dont get me wrong I think this is a HMO its just making sure that the tenants aren't crafty and able to jump trhough some of the legal loop holes associated with this.
-
Many thanks for all your feedback. Lawman I take it that you mean by "The landlord could be pursued as he has failed to discharge his obligations as a Responsible Person" that the landlord should ensure that this 2 bedroom house is let out only to the single tenant who is paying him the rent, and to Knowone else?
Hi Phil, can I ask you what exactly housing can/should do about this? can they evict these ten people, and if so can they do it immediately? or do these things take time due to red tape etc.
Midland Retty, my understanding of what I have heard about this is that the ten new residents are paying the single tenant for the pleasure of staying in this house, as I said before, I have heard that the landlord has said he thought about six people were now staying in the house, but is of the opinion that his single tenant is the person at fault, and what exactly is squaters rights?
If I hear any more I will let you all know
-
Midland Retty, my understanding of what I have heard about this is that the ten new residents are paying the single tenant for the pleasure of staying in this house, as I said before, I have heard that the landlord has said he thought about six people were now staying in the house, but is of the opinion that his single tenant is the person at fault, and what exactly is squaters rights?
If I hear any more I will let you all know
Hi Ricardo
Yeah from what you are telling me this is a HMO without doubt ! Sounds an intresting case.
Sqatters Rights (The exact legal term for it escapes me) but I had a case of it recently infact its very similar to the case youve described in this topic - a students rents a small flat off a landlord. After a while a group of his student pals decided to occupy it too.
However his student palls didnt pay rent and were therefore seen as "squatters"
The landlord had the hassle of serving an eviction notice on them which takes a lot of time - in the meantime they were living there scot free. So people who decide to live on the premises without paying rent cant be turfed out just like that - they have to be served with notice, and this is what is called (in very very basic terms) "squatters rights"
-
Being cynical I would suggest that the local FSO must take action. I appreciate that the lawyers may find various legal loopholes to crawl through however if the action is effective in improving the safety of the place that must be good. If the action is blocked legally then at least the FRA can show that it has tried to take action when things go pearshaped.
-
Sounds to me like all 11 living there regard the house as their dwelling and so there is only one dwelling. Basically for most of the RRFSO the house is simply a shared house and outside scope of the Order. The exception may be article 31 (prohibition). The test for that is going to be whether the house is a single private dwelling. That's one for ther lawyers.
Housing law is by far the safer bet and the FRS should by rights refer the case to Housing by way of complaint. The HA can then do an HHSRS and if necessary serve a prohibition.
-
I see the posts above all are about the legal side of things......but has anyone offered the occupants any fire safety advice?
-
Sounds to me like all 11 living there regard the house as their dwelling and so there is only one dwelling. Basically for most of the RRFSO the house is simply a shared house and outside scope of the Order. The exception may be article 31 (prohibition). The test for that is going to be whether the house is a single private dwelling. That's one for ther lawyers.
Housing law is by far the safer bet and the FRS should by rights refer the case to Housing by way of complaint. The HA can then do an HHSRS and if necessary serve a prohibition.
Andy this premises is in Scotland and the legislation is slightly different. The RRFSO has no relevance. From my limited knowledge of Scottish law I believe it would be classed as an HMO and therefore relevant premises for both the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and the Fire Safety (Scotland) Act 2005.
I don't know if Scotland has adopted the HHSRS but I do agree this is more appropriately dealt using housing law...but someone must act.
-
Sounds to me like all 11 living there regard the house as their dwelling and so there is only one dwelling. Basically for most of the RRFSO the house is simply a shared house and outside scope of the Order. The exception may be article 31 (prohibition). The test for that is going to be whether the house is a single private dwelling. That's one for ther lawyers.
Housing law is by far the safer bet and the FRS should by rights refer the case to Housing by way of complaint. The HA can then do an HHSRS and if necessary serve a prohibition.
Regardless of what the tenants regard it as this is a HMO and not a single dwelling or shared house. Shared house isnt a term I've ever heard of before and it isntmentioned in the RRFSO
The local Housing team should strictly speaking deal with this as an agreement signed by most LHA and FRA states that LHA will deal with fire safety in HMO's the FRA will enforce fire safety standards in mixed use buildings - ie HMO with shop underneath.
If something needs to be done straight away then FRA should issue a prohibition notice.
-
Thanks again for the responses, I am unsure at this time what action the local F&RS have taken, but I agree wholeheartedly with PhilB and Midland Retty here, someone must act, and if necessary the local F&RS should be issuing a prohibition notice, I don’t think its rocket science that its not being used in the spirit of a single private dwelling, (well not as we know it) I will need to find out about the HHSRS and if it applies in Scotland.
AndyJ, I have not come across the term “shared house” before not in any fire legislation anyway,
And I agree with you that the 10 extra people as long as they can get away with it will be regarding this 2 bedroom house as their “private dwelling” but that surely cant be right, I am sure there are loads of this going on up and down the country, I believe the FRS did contact the local housing about this, but all they allegedly said was that if these people are made homeless they will help them find new accommodation.
It just appears to me that either the landlord or his single tenant, or both are doing whatever they can to avoid compliance with fire safety, its just how I see it.
-
Ricardo,
The shared house issue is really an English problem (legally anyway) and is about a group of friends or colleagues renting and collectivly using a house together - as such English law (the RRFSO) doesn't treat them differently to a group of family members living in the same house.
For your problem (and thanks to PhilB for flagging that the premises are in Scotland) my understanding is that the premises are domestic premises and as such are only subject to the Fire Scotland Act 2005 if they are required to be licenced under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act.
-
Ricardo,
The shared house issue is really an English problem (legally anyway) and is about a group of friends or colleagues renting and collectivly using a house together - as such English law (the RRFSO) doesn't treat them differently to a group of family members living in the same house.
Hi Andy
The RRO would apply to shared houses in England because if the residents are not of the same family unit it becomes a HMO, regardless of whether or not they are all friends.
-
Not doing anything is not an option in my view. The Tenant is clearly in Breech of his Lease conditions and the Landlord coud seek legal recourse under the lease. As the Lease will no doubt be silent regarding resposibility for a FRA the Landlord could be pursued by the Fire Officer at the same time that action is taken agaist the tenant.
Maybe the landlord is quite happy with this arrangement. No need for stupid and expensive fire safety measures.
-
Ricardo,
The shared house issue is really an English problem (legally anyway) and is about a group of friends or colleagues renting and collectivly using a house together - as such English law (the RRFSO) doesn't treat them differently to a group of family members living in the same house.
Hi Andy
The RRO would apply to shared houses in England because if the residents are not of the same family unit it becomes a HMO, regardless of whether or not they are all friends.
What is a family unit now a days? Are co-habiting partners with children a family? Are co-habiting single sex partners a family? Can 10 single sex persons not live as a family? Can 10 persons sharing a house not share the rent and live as a family?
The definition of a family (whatever that is) can be much broader than of the past.
Not saying I know answer but gives food for thought.
-
Hi nearlythere
I believe the law would accept blood relatives or partners (ie two people) with children (from either partner) as a family unit.
Same sex couples would be seen as a family unit. But if you start getting ten people co habiting then clearly this couldnt be a family unit or a co-habiting couple.
If granny comes to live with the family that would still be deemed as a single family unit because clearly Granny is a blood relative.
If you then get Joe Bloggs come and stay as a lodger cos the family decide to rent out one room of their house then its a HMO.
Basically there are two issues here...
- The Paying of Rent -If Joe Bloggs were to lodge free of charge then I don't think think it could be classed as a HMO.
- If you had ten people BUYING a home (not renting) then that wouldnt be deemed as a HMO
So in short rent is the key to it all. Length of time someone lodges is also an important point, if my friend has a birthday party and me and some of his other chums stop over for the night we don't automatically make his house a HMO!
We are simply stopping there for the short term.
-
Hi nearlythere
I believe the law would accept blood relatives or partners (ie two people) with children (from either partner) as a family unit.
Same sex couples would be seen as a family unit. But if you start getting ten people co habiting then clearly this couldnt be a family unit or a co-habiting couple.
If granny comes to live with the family that would still be deemed as a single family unit because clearly Granny is a blood relative.
If you then get Joe Bloggs come and stay as a lodger cos the family decide to rent out one room of their house then its a HMO.
Basically there are two issues here...
- The Paying of Rent -If Joe Bloggs were to lodge free of charge then I don't think think it could be classed as a HMO.
- If you had ten people BUYING a home (not renting) then that wouldnt be deemed as a HMO
So in short rent is the key to it all. Length of time someone lodges is also an important point, if my friend has a birthday party and me and some of his other chums stop over for the night we don't automatically make his house a HMO!
We are simply stopping there for the short term.
Rett. Just to prolong the issue and because I'm at a loose end at the minute - what if I had a wife and a mistress or mistresses and we all lived in the same house, harem like, would it be an HMO?
-
well if you did that then:-
a) youre lucky sod :)
and
b) unless you were a ruthless husband / master then I take it you wouldnt be charging them rent so I suppose that would be allowed.
If you did charge rent to say the mistress I reckon you'd be on sticky ground.
Is it lawful to have hareem type arrangements these days?
-
nearlythere I do not think it would matter to him he would be dead or seriously injured after the wife had poured the boiling water over his marriage tackle. :)
-
Hi nearlythere
I believe the law would accept blood relatives or partners (ie two people) with children (from either partner) as a family unit.
Same sex couples would be seen as a family unit. But if you start getting ten people co habiting then clearly this couldnt be a family unit or a co-habiting couple.
If granny comes to live with the family that would still be deemed as a single family unit because clearly Granny is a blood relative.
If you then get Joe Bloggs come and stay as a lodger cos the family decide to rent out one room of their house then its a HMO.
Basically there are two issues here...
- The Paying of Rent -If Joe Bloggs were to lodge free of charge then I don't think think it could be classed as a HMO.
- If you had ten people BUYING a home (not renting) then that wouldnt be deemed as a HMO
So in short rent is the key to it all. Length of time someone lodges is also an important point, if my friend has a birthday party and me and some of his other chums stop over for the night we don't automatically make his house a HMO!
We are simply stopping there for the short term.
Rett. Just to prolong the issue and because I'm at a loose end at the minute - what if I had a wife and a mistress or mistresses and we all lived in the same house, harem like, would it be an HMO?
In this case would HMO stand for House of Multiple Orgasms? Just a thought.
-
The answer is very simple, it is up to the local council to issue a HMO declaration.
Unless all the people in the building form one household it is a HMO. The only way you can say it forms one household is if they are all related. Regardless of them saying we all share bills/sleep in the same room etc. A same sex couple with 3 foster kids would form one household. If I move my entire family into my house (3 uncles, 4 Grannies, 8 cousins etc) It would still be one household because we are related. If I have 8 kids, its still one household. (A Gruel eating household wearing bags as clothes but still 1 household)
The only HMO exemptions are if the Landlord lives in the property and rents 2 rooms to 2 different people therefore creating 3 households or if the house is occupied by no more than 2 people.
-
Great to see the debate still rolling along, agree with your comments at post 21 Midland Retty
Big T, have not come accross the term HMO declaration before, can you explain what you mean by the council issuing such a thing? cheers
-
From the housing act:
255 HMO declarations (1) If a local housing authority are satisfied that subsection (2) applies to a building or part of a building in their area, they may serve a notice under this section (an “HMO declaration”) declaring the building or part to be a house in multiple occupation.
-
Ricardo.
Communities and local government have some good online publications on HMO's. Check out the guides for landlords and managers. Should cover all your queries
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/licensinghouses
-
Ricardo.
Communities and local government have some good online publications on HMO's. Check out the guides for landlords and managers. Should cover all your queries
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/licensinghouses
Good Link
-
Indeed, I was going to cut n paste some of the housing act so people had the facts to work from, that link makes it a bit clearer than just pasting the act.
-
Civvy FSO & Big T many thanks for the info and advice, much appreciated, as said previously I am based in Scotland, so am unsure about some of the terms you use.
Ricardo
-
This makes me wonder if fire behaves different depending if occupants are family. Would people be burnt less quickly is they have blood connections.
Baffled.
Chris.
-
Yeah I see where you are coming from Chris.
Seems daft doesn't it!
However there is good reason for why tenants particularly in HMOs are protected under various sets of legislation.
Its because they tend to be vulnerable people.
-
I think the issue is that when rent from multiple occupants is in the mix, the building becomes almost a business (i'd imagine the profit margins would be pretty slim). Rather than a standard domestic dwelling.
I remeber watching a tv programme about a family on the social with 11 kids. I remeber watching the father pull the loft hatch open and send three of youngest children up the ladder to their bedroom in the attic and then close the hatch behind them. Truly frightening. I think it needs to be numbers rather than the blood line.
-
Chris,
I think the whole thing used to work on the assumption that a person would not deliberately put their own family at risk whilst they may well put non family at risk for profit. How valid that assumption was is open to question at times.
-
It could also be based on statistics. Fires and deaths in HMO's are relatively common compared to family homes.
-
Our old friend Mr Todd always told me that Statistically, if you spend one night in an HMO you are about nine times more likely to die from fire than if you spent one night in a single family dwelling and therefore there is a need to provide additional fire precautions."
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/5392846.stm
-
Ricardo.
Communities and local government have some good online publications on HMO's. Check out the guides for landlords and managers. Should cover all your queries
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/licensinghouses
Not if you live and work in Scotland!!!!!!!!
-
My understanding is that if its a single dwelling including shared housing then Local Authority take action not the FRS.
My source is the protocol between Local Housing Authorities and Fire & Rescue Services to Improve Fire Safety (Published by CFOA May 2007)
-
Thats correct Dinnertime Dave
The Protocol now sets out which authority is the lead authority for enforcing fire standards in HMOs.
As a General Rule:-
LA enforce Fire Safety in all HMOs, SDD, Flats etc
FRA Enforce HMO's forming part of 'mixed use' buildings and sheltered housing.
FRA will also enforce in any council owned HMO's
FRA's will enforce standards in hostels, B&Bs and Hotels
Dont forget however that it is just a protocol... it has no legal status!
-
Ricardo.
Communities and local government have some good online publications on HMO's. Check out the guides for landlords and managers. Should cover all your queries
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/licensinghouses
Not if you live and work in Scotland!!!!!!!!
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47060/0028721.pdf
That should cover it!
-
Yes indeed BigT only thing is as soon as the sleeping guide is available covering such occupancies, it will tell us that it replaces this document. We still await most of the guides here in Scotland.
-
Ricardo
God! You mean Scotland hasn't prodced all the necessary guides before lunchtime? I'm flabbergasted, being led to believe that all things Scottish were bathed in a golden glow. (Must be since the SNP took over)
Still find it strange that Scotland is the only region of the UK with a declining population despite the English bribing them to stay there.
Only joking of course
-
Pesumably they will scrap all this RRO stuff when they declare independence and come up with something better?
-
Still find it strange that Scotland is the only region of the UK with a declining population
Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good story......but the 2007 The Registrar General's Review of Scotland's Population reads "For the fourth year running, Scotland's population rose in the year to June 2006 - increasing by 22,100 to 5,116,900."
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/press/2007-news/the-rgs-review-of-scotlands-population.html
English bribing them to stay there.
Where are the payments available from, my application form must have got lost in the post.
being led to believe that all things Scottish were bathed in a golden glow. (Must be since the SNP took over)
You got that bit right ;)
-
Scottish counting methods aren't very advanced...hey Jock, it must be your round!
I prefer English statistics...they would never lie.
Projected trends differ for the four countries of the UK. The decline in the population of Scotland is projected to continue, while the populations of Wales and Northern Ireland are projected to peak around 2030 and then start to fall. The population of England is still projected to be rising in forty years' time, but at a low rate of growth.
National Statistics Online
As to bribes..they get about £10,000 per person more in rate support grant. THats not surprising as half the Westminster MP's are Scottish.
-
Scottish counting methods aren't very advanced...hey Jock, it must be your round!
I prefer English statistics...they would never lie.
Projected trends differ for the four countries of the UK. The decline in the population of Scotland is projected to continue, while the populations of Wales and Northern Ireland are projected to peak around 2030 and then start to fall. The population of England is still projected to be rising in forty years' time, but at a low rate of growth.
National Statistics Online
As to bribes..they get about £10,000 per person more in rate support grant. THats not surprising as half the Westminster MP's are Scottish.
Your quote is rather vaugue compared to mine, which gave the exact numbers and was written in 2007. So I have more faith in the specifics of my source.
So what are these "rate support grants" and how might one go about applying for one?
-
the populations of Wales and Northern Ireland are projected to peak around 2030 and then start to fall.
Surely more people live in wales and NI than that?
More than 2030 people live in my illegally run HMO
-
I would like to seek the forums views on the following,
A fire occurred within a caravan which was parked within a private dwellings’ garden adjacent to the house.
The fire spread into the house causing considerable damage. It was ascertained by the fire crews that within the house lived an owner and son, who let out 2 rooms only, and there were also 2 caravans located adjacent to the house each housing 1 person, who were allowed to use the facilities within the house. (Bathroom, kitchen)
I am assuming that the owner has deliberately kept the figure down to 2 persons within the house to avoid the need to have an HMO license, and whatever fire safety measures that would go along with this.
There is now an argument between different departments regarding whether or not this constitutes an HMO, due to the 2 persons currently residing in the caravans using the house facilities.
Fire Service view is no, as the persons are not actually staying/nor sleeping in the house.
My questions are
1 – Due to the fact that this so called domestic house owner has taken in 2 paying “lodgers” would that not strictly speaking class this house as a “relevant premises”? And come under fire legislation both north and south of the border? And no doubt then “possibly” require the need for at least a Part 6, Grade D - LD2 fire detection system?
2 – Even if there was only 1 paying “lodger” staying in the house, would you consider that strictly speaking should also come under the terms of being a “relevant premises”? As it’s not being used as domestic premises then. ( at what point do we say it’s a relevant premises?)
3 – The caravans that are being utilized in the garden for paying residents, should they really be classed as “relevant premises” and appropriate fire safety measures taken by the owner?
Below is an extract from both the RR (FSO) & the Fire (Scotland) Act for domestic premises definitions.
RR(FSO)
“domestic premises” means premises occupied as a private dwelling (including any garden,
yard, garage, outhouse, or other appurtenance of such premises which is not used in common
by the occupants of more than one such dwelling);
Fire (Scotland) Act
“domestic premises” means premises occupied as a private dwelling (including a stair, passage, garden, yard, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises which is used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling); but does not include premises such as are mentioned in subsection (5).
I have been advised that Under the fire safety order a domestic premises is a premises that is not shared, so a shared house would be covered by the order, but I couldn’t see that is what the definition above is actually saying. It seems to me its talking about the (bits in brackets) not being shared. Any views appreciated.
-
Thats the big difference between the English and Scottish legislation. In England any parts in common use are not domestic premises and are subject to the Order.
In Scotland these parts even if in common use are still considered to be domestic premises. This reflects the wording in the Housing Legislation in each country, which was simply carried across to the new fire safety legislation.
-
Ricardo:
>>1 – Due to the fact that this so called domestic house owner has taken in 2 paying “lodgers” would that not strictly speaking class this house as a “relevant premises”? And come under fire legislation both north and south of the border? And no doubt then “possibly” require the need for at least a Part 6, Grade D - LD2 fire detection system?<<
Effectively the landlord lives in the premises, and if I recall correctly this exempts it from being a HMO. It is still a private dwelling, maybe not a single private dwelling, but it is still private.
As daft as it sounds, the RRO applies to the route from the caravans/house out to the public road, it also applies to the route the caravan users will use to go from their caravan to the toilet/bath/kitchen etc in the house. This is because these routes are used by the occupants of more than one dwelling. So all you can do under the RRO is to protect relevant persons from a fire in these routes.
-
This reflects the wording in the Housing Legislation in each country, which was simply carried across to the new fire safety legislation.
Hi Kurnal, any chance just out of interest you can direct me to where I can find this wording in your housing legsilation, this is something I never look at to be honest.
And CivvyFSO, thanks, re your quote
"Effectively the landlord lives in the premises, and if I recall correctly this exempts it from being a HMO"
Is this how it works south of the border? if the landlord lives in, then its not an HMO, my understanding up north is that the owner & family are not termed "qualifying persons" and dont count in the numbers.
I quote from Scottish Govs website
Where an “owner” of a house lives there and lets out rooms, or shares with friends, the owner is not counted as a “qualifying person", nor are any members of their family that live with them.
-
After having a quick look at the housing act, I may be talking out of my ar*e about the place not being classed as a HMO if the landlord lives on the premises.
-
After having a quick look at the housing act, I may be talking out of my ar*e about the place not being classed as a HMO if the landlord lives on the premises.
I think you may be right.
-
This reflects the wording in the Housing Legislation in each country, which was simply carried across to the new fire safety legislation.
Hi Kurnal, any chance just out of interest you can direct me to where I can find this wording in your housing legsilation, this is something I never look at to be honest.
HMMMM sorry Ricardo I think my memory may be playing tricks on me again- domestic premises are only defined int he fire legislation- different for each country but the housing act uses the same terms to define a house, dwelling and a house in multiple occupation
Does this help at all
http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=2392
And this
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/ukpga_20040034_en_1
-
Thanks Kurnal
I now dont know whether I live in a house or a dwelling with these definitions from:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/uk … 40034_en_1
Meaning of “house” etc. In this Part—
“dwelling” means a building or part of a building - occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling;
“house” means a building or part of a building - consisting of one or more dwellings;
But I think it must be a house. or a dwelling!! ( I'm sure I come under both)