A planning expert has highlighted that new class order legislation calling for property investors to apply for  consent when opening a new house in multiple occupation (HMO) may be a misinterpretation of the rules and planners may not have the right to refuse the proposal.

Read the full story

Housing Minister Grant Shapps has stepped up to keep an election promise by announcing a revamp of house in multiple occupation (HMO) planning and licensing rules.

Read the full story

Newmarket racehorse trainer Russell Price was fined £3,500 for breaching an house in multiple occupation (HMO) prohibition order.

The prosecution is believed to be one of the first against a landlord for breaching an order banning use of the property for letting to tenants.

Price, 42, of Newmarket, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing to letting an HMO between September 2008 and April 2009 in breach of the order served by Forest Heath Council.

He failed to attend court for the hearing last week, so magistrates a found him guilty of breaching the council’s order in his absence..

Besides the fine, he was ordered to pay costs of £1,315.

Forest Heath Council served Price with a prohibition order in January 2008.

Subsequent inquiries by council officers revealed housing benefit was paid to tenants who said they were living in the property.

A Forest Heath District Council spokesman said after the hearing: “We believe this is the first prosecution of its kind in the country and it sends out a clear message that we will take action against the landlords of poorly managed houses in multiple occupation to ensure the health and wellbeing of potential tenants.”

Buy our HMO Guide to the new planning and licensing rules

Failing to adequate fire safety precautions at a shared house has cost a house in multiple occupation (HMO) landlord more than £6,000.

Philip Penprase, 53, of Prideaux Close, Saltash, Devon, admitted failing to ensure the shared house he owned in Plymouth had adequate fire alarms, emergency lighting and general fire precautions at the city’s magistrates’ court.

He was fined £3,500 with £2,549 costs for three offences against the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005

Fire safety officers visited his HMO in Paradise Place, Stoke, Plymouth, in June last year and were dissatisfied with safety precautions in place.

An order was served on him to carry out the work within 36 hours, but Penprase told the court he did not understand that he had to comply with the order so quickly and did not complete the maintenance within the required time.

Station manager Alan Bowers, of Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, said: “Ignorance of the law is not a defence and a building which has people living in self-contained flats with communal areas clearly counts as a house of multiple occupation in law and therefore has to have adequate fire precautions.”

Need to know the new HMO rules? Read our comprehensive guide

Landlords are facing a crackdown from a local council if they breach shared housing laws.

The warning follows a £350 fine for a company that let four people live in a house in multiple occupation accommodation (HMO).

The Highland Council’s head of environmental health and trading standards, Alistair Thomson, said: “While we will advise and work with landlords on HMO requirements, we will not hesitate to use formal action against any irresponsible property owners to secure compliance.”

Strict shared housing planning and licensing laws were introduced in England on April 6.

Need to know the new HMO rules? Read our comprehensive guide

Scotland and Wales have similar regulations.

All properties that are let to three or more unrelated people must be registered as a house of multiple occupation (HMO) by the council after meeting strict standards. In England, they must also have planning permission.

FWM Developments admitted running an HMO without a licence at Inverness Sherrif Court by letting four people live there

The court heard environmental health officers executed a warrant to enter the property at Kenneth Street, Inverness, in November 2008, after suspicions arose that it was an unlicensed HMO.

The council said it was being used as staff accommodation for a popular local Chinese restaurant.

Environmental health officer Gregor MacCormick said: “The property was in a  poor state of repair throughout and significantly fell below the council’s standards for HMOs. Despite several warnings, the owner failed to apply for a licence and bring the property up to the required standards.”

The council also told the court that the property had substandard fire safety precautions in place.

Insurance companies often refuse to pay out on claims where anyone who owns or lives in a buy to let property has not declared an unspent criminal conviction.

Landlords can unknowingly have their insurance claims rejected if a tenant has not told them about unspent convictions and property investors and councils are facing problems providing homes for ex-offenders.

In a recent case, insurers Aviva paid out £241,000 to a woman whose estranged husband burned down the former matrimonial home.

The money was spent on rebuilding the home, and two weeks before she was due to take the keys back, insurance investigators discovered she was fined £150 two year’s before for receiving an overpayment of housing benefit.

Aviva voided the policy and are now claiming the £241,000 back on the grounds they would not have granted the policy if they had originally known about the conviction.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 lays down the rules about when convictions become spent – which is effectively when an offender no longer has to tell anyone about the court case.

The process is similar to getting points on a driving licence – they are plain to see for a set period depending on the offence and are then removed when the period is over.

The more serious the crime, the longer the unspent period lasts. The minimum unspent period is six months.

The problem for landlords is dealing with their own convictions is one thing, but asking tenants and their families to disclose their convictions is another.

The convictions do not have to relate to a tenancy – shoplifting and drink driving are two offences that are committed most often and ones that should be disclosed to an insurer.

Any landlord offering accommodation to ex-offenders should also review insurance policies to make sure they actually do provide the cover that is being paid for.

The issue also affects insurance brokers, letting agents and other property businesses that sell landlord and tenant insurances on commission without fully explaining the consequences.

Running a shared house where five tenants lived without a license and failing to maintain fire safety standards has cost a landlord £8,300 in court.

Neil Jakubowski-Birch of Cherhill, Wiltshire was found guilty at Swindon Magistrates Court of failing to properly manage the house at Rolleston Street, Swindon.

The four storey property, which had seven bed-sits and five tenants, was visited by the council’s environmental health officers in 2009 who found a smashed window, disconnected or broken smoke detectors and emergency lighting, and poor fire doors – all of which would have been dangerous in the event of a fire.

The property was not licensed as a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

The prosecution was brought after Mr Birch failed to rectify all of the defective conditions following the council visits.

Magistrates fined him £2,300 for various offences under the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations, a further £3,000 for failing to licence the property which was in breach of Section 72 of the Housing Act 2004, and ordered to pay costs to the council of £3,066.

Paul Simmonds, the council’s Head of Neighbourhood, said: “Large properties such as this with missing or defective fire safety equipment pose a considerable risk to tenants. A fully functioning fire alarm, emergency lighting system along with properly maintained fire doors are vital to warn tenants in the event of a fire and to control fire spread enabling occupants to get out safely.

“In bringing this case we are sending out a clear message to all negligent landlords that dangerous housing conditions will not be tolerated. We support and encourage the majority of landlords operating in Swindon who provide safe and satisfactory accommodation, but there is no place for those that don’t.”

Shared housing tenants were shocked to find their fire alarm was not working when a fire failed to set it off.

The tenants – who live in the same street as the landlord – contacted Leeds City Council to complain and the house in multiple occupation licensing team found even more problems at the house including:

• Seven people living there when it was only licensed for six
• A basement had been turned into a bedroom without notifying the council
• The basement window was locked with a metal grille, obstructing a fire escape route

Azmat Anwar of  Brudenell Mount, Headingley, Leeds, admitted to six HMO licence offences and was fined £12,000 with £2,013 costs and a £15 victim surcharge by Leeds City magistrates.

The tenants claimed they had told the landlord about the problems, but she had not tried to resolve them.

In January, a letter from Anwar claimed that her brother was managing the property for her, though she had failed to notify the council about the change as she was the named as manager on the HMO licence.

She accepted seven tenants lived in the house but argued the basement had always been a bedroom. Anwar said she had only applied for a licence for six people because of the size of the kitchen. The kitchen was extended later, so she took another tenant in to the basement but had not notified the council of the changes.

She agreed the fire alarm needed repair but was ill at the time and had tried to arrange for two workmen to call without success.

A further council  inspection confirmed the alarm was working. The security grille and escape window to the basement  had not been replaced or altered, and no variation to the licence had been applied for relating to the change in the number of tenants nor the management arrangements and changes to the property layout.

Councillor Les Carter, Leeds City Council’s executive board member for housing, said: “Something as vital as a fire alarm should be repaired immediately and I’m pleased the tenants contacted us when they did.

“We have these HMO licences for a reason – to ensure that these large rented properties are fit for people to live in. Licence conditions must be complied with and the vast majority of landlords do follow the rules, but the council will come down hard on anyone who thinks the rules do not apply to them.”

In a bizarre HMO licensing case, Aberdeen City Council is taking itself to court to challenge a decision by the council’s own licensing committee not to allow the council permission to run a hostel for the homeless.

So far, the case has cost the council up to £15,000 in legal fees that are paid from the budget set aside to help the homeless.

To try and save face, the council has adjourned the case so solicitors from both sides can discuss a solution.

At Aberdeen Sheriff Court has already agreed that the council should be able to appeal against its own decision.

The case has come about because the council is paying out for hotel rooms for the homeless when the hostel would provide cheaper accommodation.

But the council’s licensing committee turned down the HMO application in September after receiving more than 50 objections mainly relating to concerns about about antisocial behaviour from people living at the hostel.

The court has adjourned the case until May 12 to allow the solicitors to thrash out an agreement. The discussion will centre around whether a police report received too late for the original licence hearing backs the objectors or proves there are no grounds to fear the hostel will generate noise and nuisance.

If the appeal fails, the hostel will close and several staff face redundancy.