Nottingham lose £95k appeal against landlord

11:03 AM, 19th November 2018, About 6 years ago 22

Text Size

Nottingham City Council, who have been heavily crticised by our own Mick Roberts and Property118 members for their selective licensing scheme, are now under fire for wasting £95,000 of tax payers money on a failed Supreme Court appeal case.

The Council lost both cases against a landlord who was taken to court over the size of two student HMO bedrooms built into attics with a sloping roof.

One attic room has a total floor area of 9.75 square metres, but only 5.89 square metres has a floor to ceiling height of 1.53 metres or more. The other room has a floor area of approximately 11 square metres with only 6.89 square metres having a floor to ceiling height of 1.53 metres or more.

Councillor Linda Woodings, said:

“We believe as a matter of principle and fairness that there should be a minimum acceptable bedroom size that applies to everyone.

“We were therefore disappointed with the Supreme Court ruling because in effect, it means one group of people are being forced to accept a lower standard of accommodation than others. There is a real concern that this could be the thin end of the wedge and that the same interpretation could be applied to other minimum standards for HMOs such as the number and size of bathroom or kitchen facilities.

“The Supreme Court ruling is based on the law as it stands, but the Government supported the council’s appeal so we hope it will seriously consider revising the existing legislation to end this unfair anomaly.

“We felt strongly that there was a significant issue of unfairness at stake, which meant that tenants living in shared accommodation were at risk of suffering poorer quality housing than someone living in exactly the same house but on a separate tenancy.

“We aim to achieve quality housing for all, not just some, which is why we were prepared to take this case through the courts and had support from Government on our position, so it’s disappointing the Supreme Court ruled as it did.”

From 1 October 2018 the Ministry of Housing, Community and Local Government has published regulations confirming that HMOs licensed in England under part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 will be required to have a floor area no-smaller than 6.51 square metres.

Please see >> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2018/9780111167359/regulation/2

“Additional conditions to be included in licences under Part 2: floor area etc

1A.—(1) Where the HMO is in England, a licence under Part 2 must include the following conditions.

(2) Conditions requiring the licence holder—

(a)to ensure that the floor area of any room in the HMO used as sleeping accommodation by one person aged over 10 years is not less than 6.51 square metres;

(b)to ensure that the floor area of any room in the HMO used as sleeping accommodation by two persons aged over 10 years is not less than 10.22 square metres;

(c)to ensure that the floor area of any room in the HMO used as sleeping accommodation by one person aged under 10 years is not less than 4.64 square metres;

(d)to ensure that any room in the HMO with a floor area of less than 4.64 square metres is not used as sleeping accommodation.”

Share This Article

Comments

B4lamb

15:12 PM, 19th November 2018, About 6 years ago

Obfuscated Data

Report Comment Reply

Mike

18:07 PM, 19th November 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by B4lamb at 19/11/2018 - 15:12Exactly let me not try to be rude, she needs to pull her head out and see what is fairness, a tenant is not forced to accept an accommodation if he or she feels is not right or suitable because of the size or floor area, or a sloping ceiling, don't buy things and complain afterwords that it is not fit for the purpose, this can apply to advertised goods, but an accommodation is different since you would actually go to see it before you buy or rent.
Same way, if I was a house owner, with growing family, I could build loft conversion and have my children occupy very happily that space indeed. Now tell me I am not making fair comment. Indeed the rent would reflect the size and shape of the space, rather than being homeless and having to sleep rough on streets, I would not mind someone give me a box in his rear garden to sleep in total safety, and charge me a token money to use his facilities and go to work, rather than getting spat on and kicked in the streets and urinated over.

Report Comment Reply

Annie Landlord

18:49 PM, 19th November 2018, About 6 years ago

Just think of what Nottingham could have done with that £95000 to help people in dire need. Instead, they bring a court case based on a few centimetres! Idiots!

Report Comment Reply

Mike

3:57 AM, 20th November 2018, About 6 years ago

I friend asked me what he can do as one of his room was just short of total square meters of area to be acceptable for occupation by 2 persons, otherwise it would only qualify for 1 person so he asked me if I have any ideas or if there was a way to increase the area, I looked at his property, and noticed that there was a small length corridor from upper hallway leading to the back room roughly a meter and a half in length, and about a meter wide, then the room door, so i gave him an idea what if he rips his door and frame off and re-positions more towards the hall way and shorten the length of the corridor then anything past that room door becomes floor area belonging to the room, that did the trick. as he got his builder to move the door and the frame a meter more towards the hallway, gained a square meter space into the room. floor plan. Where there is a will there is a way. But so glad this landlord won his case.

Report Comment Reply

Luke P

9:58 AM, 20th November 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Mike at 20/11/2018 - 03:57Genuinely...I know a LL who removed skirting boards due to an overzealous Council an their 'rules' to gain additional square meterage.

Report Comment Reply

Michael Barnes

12:10 PM, 20th November 2018, About 6 years ago

I believe this is the case reported at https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/10/who-lives-in-a-shared-home-like-this

It appears that the ruling is likely to apply where property is let on a single AST, but not where property is let by the room.

Report Comment Reply

Rob Crawford

13:33 PM, 20th November 2018, About 6 years ago

This is interesting in that the Court of Appeal recognises greater interaction and cohesiveness between student tenants. But also the acceptance that students can accommodate a smaller room size than legislated (the smaller room being a lessor size than the new legislation) if a maximum term of ten months is agreed. However, I note the min room size that could be acceptable for students over a ten month term was not defined!

Report Comment Reply

Rob Crawford

13:45 PM, 20th November 2018, About 6 years ago

...further to my last, it should be noted that the above case was concluded prior to the 1st Oct room size legislation. So we just need clarification as to whether these room sizes could be less for student use. The Landlord of the smaller room may, since 1st Oct, be no better off.

Report Comment Reply

Matt Wardman

6:06 AM, 21st November 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by B4lamb at 19/11/2018 - 15:12
In Nottingham there is:

"Anyone who owns a privately rented home in the designated Nottingham areas should have applied for a licence by now. The only exception is for those properties which already have an HMO licence.

The designated areas for Nottingham Selective Licensing is as follows:

Arboretum, Bestwood, Bulwell, Bulwell Forest, Basford, Berridge, Bridge, Clifton North, Clifton South, Dales, Dunkirk and Lenton, Leen Valley, Mapperley, Radford and Park, Sherwood, St Ann’s, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey."

Report Comment Reply

Matt Wardman

6:15 AM, 21st November 2018, About 6 years ago

Nottingham have a history of trolling LLs at public expense like this.

Back in 2012 they went for the Congregational Federation, who have a big HMO in central Nottingham, on the basis of a minimum room size of 8sqm in their regulations.

They got a good spanking then, too.
https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/press-releases/city-council-loses-appeal-to-restrict-a-licence-for-hmo-student/

Report Comment Reply

Previous 1 2 3 Next

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

Continue with Facebook

Continue with Twitter

Username/Email Address

Password

Remember Me

Forgotten your password?

Don't have an account? Sign Up

“Account”	means an account required to access and/or use certain areas and features of Our Site;
“Cookie”	means a small text file placed on your computer or device by Our Site when you visit certain parts of Our Site and/or when you use certain features of Our Site. Details of the Cookies used by Our Site are set out in section 13, below;
“Cookie Law”	means the relevant parts of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003;
“personal data”	means any and all data that relates to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified from that data. In this case, it means personal data that you give to Us via Our Site. This definition shall, where applicable, incorporate the definitions provided in the EU Regulation 2016/679 – the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”); and
“We/Us/Our”	Means Property118 Ltd , a limited company registered in England under company number 10295964, whose registered address is 1st Floor, Woburn House, 84 St Benedicts Street, Norwich, NR2 4AB.

Name of Cookie	Purpose	Strictly Necessary
JSESSIONID	Used only to collect performance data, with any identifiable data obfuscated	No
__cfduid	This cookie is strictly necessary for Cloudflare's security features and cannot be turned off.	Yes

Name of Cookie	First / Third Party	Provider	Purpose
__utma, __utmb, __utmc, __utmt, __utmz	First	Google	Helps to understand how their visitors engage with our website
_fbp	First	Facebook	Helps to understand how their visitors engage with our website