HMO's

[jokar]

I have been asked a question about a house that has been converted into self contained flats and whether or not this premises should constitute an HMO.  Having done some background on this it may appear that the Housing Act specifically excludes this type of property.  I wonder if any of you have an opinion.

This is some information taken from the Act and the guidance to the Act.

Section 254: Meaning of "house in multiple occupation"

576. Section 254 provides a definition of a "house in multiple occupation". To

fall within that definition a privately rented building must be

i. a block of flats within the meaning of section 257; or

ii. be subject to an HMO declaration; or

iii. meet one of the three tests set out in the section.

577. The standard test in subsection (2) requires that unrelated occupiers of the

building share basic amenities in living accommodation that is not a self contained

flat or flats, or that the living accommodation lacks one or more of those

amenities. Subsection (3) provides that a self contained flat can be an HMO if

unrelated occupiers share basic amenities, or the flat lacks one or more of those

amenities.

578. Subsection (4) applies to private rented converted buildings which meet the

shared or lack of facilities tests in (2) and also buildings that include flats where

the basic amenities for the exclusive use of the occupant are located outside of the

main living accommodation.

579. Section 254 also contains definitions of "self-contained flat", "converted

building" and "basic amenities". In addition it exempts those buildings in Schedule

14 from the definition and provides regulation making powers for the appropriate

national authority to amend this section and related provisions as they relate to the

definition of HMO.  The definition of basic amenities is a WC, washing facilities and a cooker.

[Tom Sutton]

Check out http://www.firesafe.org.uk/assets/docs/hmodefin.pdf may be of some help. Are they owner/occupiers or long term tenants this will have significance however the Local Housing Authority are the final arbiters.

[kurnal]

Hi Jokar
Is your query from a fire perspective or is from a general perspective eg in respect of licensing of HMOs?

[CivvyFSO]

Jokar

If it has been converted to self contained flats under 'recent' building regs then the building will not be a HMO. This doesn't stop any individual apartment being a HMO, i.e. 3 or more unrelated rent paying tenants within a flat and the individual flat could be a HMO. This is quite unlikely though.

[jokar]

Alan,

It is from a fire perspective, a risk assessor has said to a LHA that they should utilise the LACORS guide to riak assess these particular types of property as an enforcing authority want to inspect and see risk assessments for them.  The LHA representative has quite rightly stated the information above but the risk assessors is it a bind as he knows the enforcing authority are targetting these premises types.

[CivvyFSO]

To use LACORS to risk assess a premises built for a stay put policy would be quite clearly wrong. The correct guide, if a guide is needed, would be the CLG sleeping accomodation guide.

From LACORS guidance:

This guidance does not apply to properties
constructed or converted to a standard in compliance
with the Building Regulations 1991 or later (and which
still comply).
---
In view of the type of properties falling within
the scope of this guide, the fire safety approach
adopted is to provide early warning of any fire to all
occupiers and to ensure that they can safely evacuate
the building to a place of permanent safety (total
evacuation). Blocks of flats which were constructed or
converted in compliance with the Building Regulations
1991, approved document B or equivalent may adopt
a different approach such as ‘stay-put’ as the level of
compartmentation means there will be a low risk of
fire spreading beyond its unit of origin.

[jokar]

Thanks everyone.  Could it be an issue here that the premises could be viewed as domestic premises with that definition from the
RR(FS)O? 

[Tom Sutton]

Even if it isn't a HMO the common areas will be subject to the RR(FS)O.

[jokar]

Tom,

I agree, but in a court ruling that I have but not with me (Civvy mentioned it in another post and I can not find that either) the Judge ruled that any part and any appurtenace of a property where the person can go is still part of a domestic premises.  Now I think it could be argued that a common staircase is an appurtenance of a premises and therefore could stand outside of the RR(FS)O particularly if the propert is not counted as an HMO and would never be subject to any licensing conditions.

[Tom Sutton]

I agree but not when it is used in common according to the definition of domestic premises.

"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);

Shirley if what you say then common areas of blocks of flats would would not apply?

[kurnal]

Dont get confused by the differences between the English and Scottish Legislation. The definition of Domestic Premises is very different North and South of the border

In England those parts used in common by occupants of more than one dwelling  are NOT domestic premises and are subject to the Fire Safety Order.

In Scotland the definition of Domestic premises INCLUDES those areas used in common by occupants of more than one dwelling. 

[Tom Sutton]

Point taken Kurnal all my comments only apply E&W and that's enough for me I give NI and Scotland a wide berth that's why I referred to the RR(FS)O.

[Midland Retty]

Tom,

I agree, but in a court ruling that I have but not with me (Civvy mentioned it in another post and I can not find that either) the Judge ruled that any part and any appurtenace of a property where the person can go is still part of a domestic premises.  Now I think it could be argued that a common staircase is an appurtenance of a premises and therefore could stand outside of the RR(FS)O particularly if the propert is not counted as an HMO and would never be subject to any licensing conditions.

Hi Jokar

Be aware that the common parts of a HMO, licensed or not, are subject to the requirements of the RR(FS)O. As Kurnal already pointed out there is a difference in definitions and legislation in Scotland which I believe is where the case Civvy mentioned occurred.

The only grey area which seems to cause confusions are Shared Houses. According to the Lacors guide, the whole property is considered to be so similar to a single domestic dwelling that the RR(FS)O order wouldn't apply, however be aware that the term "shared house" has no legal definition, and it's status or meaning or legal standing has not been tested in court.

Local Authorities enforce standards within HMOs, and have the mechanisms to enforce fire precautions in the common and "domestic" parts of the HMO. Often the Fire Authority will act as advisors on behalf of the LA in this respect, where the RR(FS)O doesn't apply.

[jokar]

Again,

I agree with all the posters.  However, these types of property are not HMO's and therefore do not come under the Housing Act.  The point about the RR(FS)O is right as the staircase would be used in common and as such the legislation will apply but why, the common areas are an appurtenance to the living of the self contained flats owners or tenants and are built to the current Building Regulations as much as any house would be.  The only difference is 6 sets of people doing differing things, the compartmentation will be the same for all flats and will probably be a default to 60 minutes a Part 6 system of whatever grade in each dwelling space probably no FFE or EEL. 

Are these classed as a more hazardous type of property purely on the fact that people die in fire in their own home?

[Tom Sutton]

the common areas are an appurtenance to the living of the self contained flats owners or tenants and are built to the current Building Regulations as much as any house would be.

Jokar if they applied the above to the definition of a domestic premises then all flats would be exempt from fire safety legislation (except building regs) which would include multi story blocks of flats and would that be acceptable to you. When I was operational multi storey blocks of flats were only subject to building regs, and we inspected them annually. As a result we submitted reports the corporation (council) and on the next inspection we found faults still outstanding from previous years, in my experience goodwill visits never work.