Houses in Multiple Occupation: Fire Risk & Regulation in England

The Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) sectors have a particularly bad reputation for poor fire safety.

These houses, in which individuals have their own room, but generally share all the other facilities, are becoming the only option for many people. Since January 2012, single people aged 25 to 34 have only been entitled to a level of housing benefit known as the “shared accommodation rate”.

Statistics show that residents are six times more likely to die in a house fire if they live in an HMO. And if the HMO is three or more storeys high, the probability increases to 16 times more likely. It’s clear why legislation has been targeted at this disproportionately high-risk sector.

What’s an HMO?
The definitions applying within England and Wales are set out within the Housing Act 2004. It’s complex but as a general rule an HMO is a building occupied by three or more occupants in more than one household and who share some amenities such as a bathroom, toilet, or cooking facilities.

A common arrangement is a house that is let as separate rooms with shared bathroom, kitchen, and living room. There are also some older buildings converted into self-contained flats that count as HMOs.

What’s the significance?
If a premises is an HMO it means that the person managing it has to comply with HMO Management Regulations and local HMO standards which cover overcrowding, amenities, and fire safety. In addition, certain “shared” and bedsit HMOs require a licence.

If you’ve ever felt confused about the topic, it’s hardly surprising. In addition to the national legislation, which sets out categories of HMOs for “mandatory licensing”, the local authorities can pass their own bylaws requiring that other categories of HMO need to be licensed, i.e., “additional licensing”.

From the landlord’s perspective, having a licensable HMO is expensive. Fees are typically between GB pound 1000 and GB pound 1500 for a five-year licence. On top of this, there are the costs of improvements needed to meet the standards — detection systems, sounders, fire doors, etc.

Recent case law
Given what’s at stake, it’s not surprising that a very large landlord was prepared to fight in court over whether certain properties were “licensable”.

The flats in the test case, London Borough of Islington v. The Unite Group PLC , are “cluster flats” within Charles Morton Court in Islington, a purpose-built block of self-contained flats of five storeys. The ground floor consists of a shop. Each cluster flat contains a shared living room and kitchen plus four to six bedrooms, each of which has its own en-suite bathroom and lockable door.

Both parties agreed that each cluster flat was an HMO within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004. The contested issue was whether they fell within licencing criteria.

The London Borough of Islington said that they did. It was relying on Article 3 of the Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Description) (England) Order 2006. This states that mandatory licencing applies if the HMO, or any part of it, comprises three storeys or more, is occupied by five or more persons, and is occupied by persons living in two or more single households. The legislation makes clear that floors used for business purposes are to be counted as if they’re part of the premises. But the council contended that the wording of Article 3 ought to be interpreted as inclusive of other residential storeys. That would mean in this case, that as the block was five storeys high, each flat had to be licenced.

But the judge disagreed, concluding “It is the HMO that must comprise the three storeys and not the building in which an HMO happens to be found.” The storeys used for business purposes counted but in this case that only added one storey, totalling two. If the council wanted to make the situation licensable it would need to introduce its own “additional licensing” criteria.

What can we learn?
What’s shown is that there is already plentiful legislation out there to control standards in the HMO sector, but local authorities need to put in the ground work. It’s a prize worth fighting for though, because improvements in fire safety within HMOs are likely to pay dividends when it comes to reductions in numbers of deaths and injuries.

I wonder what our international colleagues’ experiences are of this sector?