Updating post from Reddit.
Dear fellow landlords,
Really hoping to get a straight answer here as responses from Harrow council has not been satisfactory so far.
My question - Would a live in landlord (2 adults +1 child) and 2 lodgers (lodgers are friends and are not related to me or to each other) need a HMO license? I believe as per Schedule 14 of the Housing Act 2004 this arrangement does not require a HMO license
However, below are the responses I have received from Harrow Council from an enforcement support officer:
Basically, you have 3 family living in one property - A) 2 adults +1 kid B) First lodger c) Second Lodger. Therefore you need an HMO license
All HMOs as defined by section 254 of the Housing Act, not schedule 14 of the Housing Act 2004
Is Harrow council even correct in their response? Any guidance will be super helpful !
No, they are wrong. Section 254 part 6 specifically tells you to look at schedule 14 for exemptions. The exemption is for the household of the owner plus up to two other people - it does not matter if they are 1 or 2 additional households.
(For completeness, The two is not specified in these regulations, that's in the The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006 section 6(2))
Seems correct but you will likely need to give the council chapter and verse unfortunately.
This is correct. Schedule 14 means OP (as long as they are the owner-occupier - OP does not explicitly confirm) property as described occupancy (2 non owner-occupier family) is NOT an HMO (and therefore never HMO licensable).
What is an HMO?
The term House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) refers to a property rented out by at least three people who aren’t related, but share facilities like the bathroom and kitchen. When does a property become an HMO?
It’s a common misconception that the HMO regulations only apply to flatshares where the landlord doesn’t live in the property – it’s perfectly possible to have an HMO as a live in landlord too. You’re allowed to have two ‘non family’ members before your property is classified as an HMO, but when you get to three non-family, paying lodgers, it’ll change. It doesn’t matter if the lodgers are related to each other or not – the rule is around forming two or more separate households.
https://www.spareroom.co.uk/content/info-landlords/will-taking-in-a-lodger-turn-my-home-into-an-hmo/
Thanks, but here you have only 2 non family members as lodgers not 3 so is it still HMO?
I was just reading, it’s not clear on the internet. The internet keeps stating renting to 3 or more. This sounds to me like it doesn’t include the landlord. It’s so confusing 😞
Live-in HMO Landlord Responsibilities
If you have more than one spare room in your home, you may let rooms to multiple people, but be aware that if you’re renting to three or more tenants from different households, your house will be classed as a house in multiple occupation (HMO).
Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) are subject to stricter regulations than regular rental properties. If you are a live-in landlord operating a house in multiple occupation (HMO) in your home, you must comply with all the same HMO regulations as a non-resident HMO landlord.
This includes applying for an HMO licence, complying with stricter fire regulations, ensuring the property has adequate amenities for the number of tenants, and complying with minimum room size requirements.
There is a link on the HMRC website for first tier tribunal, if you do not agree with what the council say
The council would be wrong, as you've outlined it.
Schedule 14(6)(1)(a) HA 2004 effectively disregards an owner occupied house as being a hmo. That's the starting point but it's subject to 14(6)(1)(b) and 14(6)(1)(c).
14(6)(1)(c) specifies a number of occupiers as "...no more than such number of other persons as is specified...", but this ignores members of the owner's household (as per 14(6)(1)(b).)
The specified number of other persons in the 2006 regs is 2.
Unless the number of persons outside the landlord's household exceeds 2, then it's not a hmo for the purposes of part 2 of the HA 2004 or the HMO Management Regulations.
S254 outlines the basics of what a HMO is but schedule 14 then tells you what can't be a HMO. The fact they're not even understanding what schedule 14 does overall is a worry.
> "The following paragraphs list buildings that are not houses in multiple occupations for any purposes of this Act other than those of Part 1"
5 people from 2 or more different households require a mandatory hmo licence. Doesn't matter that you live there. So 5 people and 3 households yes you either need a mandatory hmo licence or risk a fine of 10k or 20k (not sure on the fine amount currently) or get rid of a lodger.
Edit I am wrong sorry it is 3 people renting
That's not right. If the owners family have no more than 2 lodgers then it's not an HMO, so the question of a licence doesn't arise.
Sorry you are right. I was wrong it's 3 or more people renting.
Thanks for the clarification, it’s good info to know. The internet can be so confusing
No, you need 3 lodgers in order to need a Hmo license. You only have 2 lodgers, so it's fine.
Anyeay If you lodgers don't report you, the probability of being ""caught" is almost zero. It's not like enforcement officers can see what's going on indoors. They can not even deal with anti social behaviour.
>No, you need 3 lodgers in order to need a Hmo license.
3 lodgers are required before it is an HMO.
Whether the HMO needs a licence depends on local area.
Eg. OP + 3 lodgers would be an HMO but not a licensable HMO in an area that only had Mandatory HMO (5+ppl) licensing (and no Additional HMO licensing which is required to make HMO with less than 5ppl licensable)
I thought the rule was up to 2 lodgers was OK, 3 or more lodgers (not counting yourself because you’re not a lodger) would cross the line to HMO.
[Owner occupier + owner-occupier's family + 1-2 lodgers] is exempt from being an HMO, yes.
3 lodgers and it's no longer exempt from being an HMO, so would be an HMO (as there is 3+ppl, 2+ households, sharing facilities)(which, excepting exemptions, is the definition of an HMO in England).
Noting: not all HMO are licensable HMO.
I think because you have 3 families living under one roof, your property is now classed as a HMO
Number of people varies from one council to another. For some council's 3 or more people need to be HMO for other council's till 5 people no need to be HMO.
Hmo definitions are set nationally. What the council can vary (within permitted rules) is whether a licence is needed for that hmo or not.
You're wrong. 5 seperate housholds is a LARGE HMO and always requires a licence. 3 seperate households is still a HMO but may come under selective licencing according to the local council.
In this case, it's not a HMO as the Landlord lives in + 2 people. So the extra people would be lodgers not tenants (as long as they share kitchen/bathroom facilities with the owner and owner has right of entry to their rooms.)
> You're wrong. 5 seperate housholds is a LARGE HMO and always requires a licence. 3 seperate households is still a HMO but may come under selective licencing according to the local council
You're less wrong than the person you are replying to but you are also wrong / confusing your terms.
HMO in England:
3+ppl
2+ households
sharing facilities
5+ppl HMO: is licensable everywhere (Mandatory HMO)
3-4ppl HMO: is licensable some places if the local council has an Additional HMO scheme to make such properties licensable (Additional HMO)
Selective licensing is a separate (but similar) thing to HMO licensing. It is also only in some areas by local councils (operating a Selective licensing scheme). It can make licensable properties that are not HMO licensable (and, unlike HMO licensing, can make licensable non-HMO properties).
>In this case, it's not a HMO as the Landlord lives in + 2 people. So the extra people would be lodgers not tenants (as long as they share kitchen/bathroom facilities with the owner and owner has right of entry to their rooms.)
You are correct the OPs situation is not HMO licensable but its because of schedule 14(6) exemption (from being an HMO - and thus any HMO licensability), not because the 2 occupants (who are not in owner-occupier's family) are lodgers (although they are (separately) inherently lodgers if their landlord lives there)