As reported at our July member meeting, the PDPLA supported a number of members with appeals against licensing decisions of PCC. These properties were all approved for HMO licences under Bruce Lomax's regime but rejected when they requested the same approval for the same number of people under the new Mandatory Licensing regime.
We won appeals on 3 topics, but lost on one and unfortunately that was the one topic with the most cases.
We won 3 appeals
- A Demand to remove en suite facilities to make more bedroom space
- A small bedroom deemed to be too small as the officer chose not to include space that in his personal opinion was not usable
- A request for a 3rd toilet and wash basin in a 6 occupant HMO.
- PCC can still appeal the 1st two of these decisions, but the final one was shown to be an application of out of date law which PCC should have realised – as a result, the landlord will be awarded costs which confirms (in our view) that PCC were wasting everyone’s time and effort defending the undefendable.
However, we lost 5 appeals, all on the same issue - an alleged lack of communal space in HMOs
The current requirements are sometimes double those of other authorities.
No evidence has yet been produced to justify the high standards.
We must remember that in an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal, the Tribunal will be judging what they find at the property and make their own mind up. They are not there to judge the policy or decision-making processes of the Local Authority.
The senior Judge did, however, say the Tribunal “shares some of the applicants concerns with the council’s decision making process†But went into little detail. What was clear from the hearing was that it is no wonder landlords are confused as to what is required as PCC’s representative had considerable difficulty explaining how decisions are made and if he struggles to get this across to the Tribunal when he should be well prepared, what hope have we got.
The longest but clearest adjudication runs to 16 pages but is readable and not full of legal jargon. See PO5 4AB_CHI/00MR/HMV/2019/0003_decision It can be summed up as The Tribunal does not think there is enough communal space in these properties and the PCC way of determining what is acceptable is logical. If you need to know if your HMO will meet the new interpretation of the standards you should read the adjudication.
What is likely to be acceptable in future-
Something less than the 24 sq m for 5 occupants and 34 for 6 to 10 as the standards document calls for.
Ask PCC BUT they are inconsistent.
The figure depends on many factors
- How many bedrooms are over 10 sq m
- Is the communal space used as a thoroughfare to a bathroom, bedroom or garden.
- The functionality of the space for cooking and socialising is important. A long thin room is clearly not as functional as a neat rectangle.
- The type of tenant may be a factor, they never seem to worry about the living conditions of those on benefits yet can be very attentive about how we expect middle-class students to live
It is worth appealing to management at PCC if you are unhappy with conditions imposed or advice given and NEVER undertake any work based on a request from PCC until you have it in writing – we have seen countless fire doors fitted, partitions erected and the like on the verbal request of a PCC officer who may or may not have had a point but why go to the expense in time and money unless you are sure you need to? And do please copy us so we can learn and share.
In their defence, there is as yet no evidence this is part of the Councils policy to thin out HMO density. Just a coincidence that it correlates so strongly with the views of many councillors. The irony is that if your HMO has plenty of room for noisy parties that will annoy the neighbours it will be fine with Housing Standards whereas if it is a cosy little home for students to study in but not do much else….
What next
We hope that by having to retract their demands on three cases it will make PCC take a more reasonable approach in future but that may be wishful on our part.
We are asking for a complete review of the standards now that PCC are interpreting them with much less flexibility and, if needed we may need to go to Judicial Review if this is not properly carried out including adequate consultation with all affected groups, though PCC’s stance is currently that they can set whatever rules they like without the need for consultation. We would appreciate help in this area from any members willing to do so.
From a PR aspect. We have work to do – when it appears we are arguing for lower standards, this can reflect badly on landlords. Few people understand that unnecessarily high standards come at a cost to the tenant and this is where we all need to focus discussion.