James Barker v Chantelle Kiran Shokar
[2024] UKUT 17 (LC)
Global 100 Ltd v Carlos Jimenez & Ors
27 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1243
Court of Appeal
People living cheaply in empty buildings as 'guardians' were judged to be living in shared houses needing special rules (HMOs), even though they also helped protect the buildings. The companies managing the buildings were held responsible.
Key Facts
- •Two appeals from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) concerning whether properties used by "property guardians" constituted Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) under the Housing Act 2004.
- •Properties involved: a former office building (William Road) and a former nurses' home (Stamford Brook).
- •Appellants: Global 100 Ltd, Global Guardians Management Ltd, and Theo Kyprianou.
- •Respondents: Occupiers (property guardians) and London Borough of Hounslow.
- •Property guardians pay a licence fee to live in empty properties, providing security for the owners.
- •FTT and Upper Tribunal found the properties to be HMOs.
Legal Principles
Definition of HMO under section 254 of the Housing Act 2004.
Housing Act 2004, sections 254(1), (2), (3), (4)
Sole use condition for HMOs: Occupation of living accommodation must constitute the only use of that accommodation (section 254(2)(d)). Presumption of sole use unless contrary shown (section 260).
Housing Act 2004, sections 254(2)(d), 260
Definition of "person having control" and "person managing" for HMO purposes (section 263).
Housing Act 2004, section 263
Distinction between tenancy and licence; consideration of exclusive possession (Street v Mountford [1985] and AG Securities v Vaughan [1990]).
Street v Mountford [1985] 1 AC 810, AG Securities v Vaughan [1990] 1 AC 417
Definition of rack-rent (section 263(2)).
Housing Act 2004, section 263(2)
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal correctly found that the property guardians' occupation constituted the sole use of the living accommodation, even though it served the secondary purpose of securing the property. Global Guardians held a tenancy of the Stamford Brook property, and Global 100 received rack-rent.
Similar Cases
Phoebe Cottam & Ors v Lowe Management Limited
[2023] UKUT 306 (LC)
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Mellcraft Limited
[2024] EWHC 539 (Ch)
Nottingham City Council v Housing 35 Plus Limited
[2024] UKUT 349 (LC)
Clearsprings Ready Homes Limited, R (on the application of) v Swindon Magistrates’ Court
[2024] EWHC 2023 (Admin)