Does a niece paying rent constitute a tenant under the Housing Act?

[SidM]

Anyone know?

[Midland Retty]

Not 100% sure, but because money is changing hands as rent then I think you will probably find the answer is yes. Sorry I can't be more accurate.

[nearlythere]

Anyone know?

SidM
Are you a bent politician trying to convince yourself that you have done nothing wrong and acted within the rules at all times?

[SidM]

No, what it is is that I am dealing with a 3 storey premises with cooking facilities in the rooms.  The landlord is saying that he is not a HMO because he collects rent from only two tenants on the ground floor and the rest of the premises is a single private dwelling yet he collects rent from his niece

[Big_Fella]

Does the landlords live in the dwelling also..?

[SidM]

Am not sure but if he does, does that make any difference?

[Big_Fella]

If he lived there, then he's inviting effectively a 'lodger' into his private property.  I would be more than in my rights to have a lodger living in my house, who effectively could provide me with 'a cash payment out of goodwill' to stay in my house.

[nearlythere]

Housing Act 2004 - Section 258

HMOs: persons not forming a single household

This section sets out when persons are to be regarded as not forming a single household for the purposes of section 254

(2) persons are to be regarded as not forming a single household unless-

a - they are all members of the same family, or
b - their circumstances are circumstances of a description specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the appropriate national authority.

(3) For the purpose of subsection 2(a) a person is a member of the same family as another
person if-

a - those persons are married to each other or live together a husband and wife (or an equivalent relationship in the case of persons of the same sex);
b - one of them is a relative of the other, or
c - one of them is, or is a relative of, one member of a couple and the other is a relative of the other member of the couple

(4) For the purposes-

a - a 2couple” means two persons who are married to each other or otherwise fall within subsection (3)(a);
b - “relative” means parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece or cousin;
c - a relationship of a half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood; and
d - the stepchild of a person shall be treated a his child


Occupied means 'lived in' (Silbers v Southwark LBC 1977). Therefore vacant houses cannot be HMOs under the legal definition.

So if the criteria fits, the property, by definition is an HMO.

Would this help also
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/HMOs1.htm

[Big A]

Part 1 of the Act (HHSRS etc) definitely applies. Part 2 (licensing), probably not.

[SidM]

Nearlythere - So in effect the answer is the niece constitutes a tenant but not a household, is that right?

[CivvyFSO]

The niece does form a household. If she lives with her uncle then they would still be a single household, but the tenants would also be households.

i.e. If I moved in to a shared house with you, we would form 2 separate households as far as the Housing Act is concerned. If you kicked me out you (all lonely on your own) would then form one household, and if you moved your niece in you would still form one houshold. (since she is related to you it is essentially a family home) But if your niece came to live with me (and who could blame her?) we would form 2 households, as we are (hopefully) not related.

Simples?

[nearlythere]

That, as by my learned friend Civvy has explained, would be my unqualified view also. However, don't quote me on that but by all means quote him. As regards the niece paying rent does that make her a tenent  but still part of the uncle's household?  Sometimes the law can be an ass and those who administer it. Civvy?

[CivvyFSO]

If the uncle occupied the building as his main residence then she would be part of the uncle's household. But they would still be a household that adds to the number of households in the building.

For instance, if we have 1 other tenant and the niece (with no uncle there), we have 2 households. It's a HMO.

If the 1 other tenant, the niece and the uncle lives there we still have 2 households in the building. It's still a HMO.

(Both of the above are assuming we are not talking about self contained flats)

If the uncle lives there with just his niece, even if she is paying rent, they are one household, it's not a HMO.

It is the presence of the other tenant(s) that seals it as a HMO.

[nearlythere]

But there is more than one person in one of the households. Could be HMO unless it was built as apartments or flats to 1991 Building Regs or later.

[CivvyFSO]

I am not following your thinking here.

If the uncle and niece live in the same building then they form a single household by virtue of being relatives. It is not the number of people that is of any concern, it is the number of households, and people who are relatives form a single household. FWIW I also take the definition in the act to mean that if the uncle and niece occupied separate living accomodation but in the same building, they still qualify as one household.

“relative” means parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece or cousin;