Key Facts
- •Appeal against a rent repayment order made by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •Property in question: 14 Bassett Road, London, a large townhouse with four rented rooms and a self-contained basement flat.
- •Appellant (Mr. Barker) argued the Ground Floor Room was a self-contained flat, thus not counting towards the HMO occupancy limit.
- •Respondent (Ms. Shokar) applied for a rent repayment order, alleging the property was an unlicensed HMO.
- •The FTT found the property to be an unlicensed HMO and issued a rent repayment order.
- •The appeal challenged the FTT's classification of the Ground Floor Room and its insufficient reasoning regarding occupancy.
Legal Principles
Criteria for identifying a "self-contained flat" under the Housing Act 2004.
Housing Act 2004, section 254(8)
Definition of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) under the Housing Act 2004.
Housing Act 2004, section 254(2)
Requirement for occupants to use the property as their only or main residence for it to be considered an HMO.
Housing Act 2004, section 254(2)(c)
Adequacy of reasons in FTT decisions.
Implied in the Upper Tribunal's judgment.
Case law on the 'only or main residence' criteria for HMOs
Opara v Olasemo [2020] UKUT 96 (LC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The FTT failed to properly apply the statutory definition of a "self-contained flat" and did not provide sufficient reasoning regarding occupancy.
Rent repayment order dismissed.
The Ground Floor Room was deemed a self-contained flat, meaning its occupants did not count towards the HMO occupancy threshold. Even if the rest of the house was an HMO, the occupancy did not reach the licensing threshold.