Property guardians challenge HMO ruling in Court of Appeal
Lawyers for a group of property guardian companies today told judges at the Court of Appeal that buildings inhabited by property guardians should not be classified as houses in multiple occupation.
The guardian companies, Global Guardians Management and Global 100, are seeking to overturn a ruling in the Upper Tribal last year relating to an empty office block owned by NHS Property Services. Global Guardians agreed to look after the property and created 30 bedrooms, along with shared kitchens, bathrooms and toilets. Guardians paid a monthly license fee to live there.
The local council decided that the arrangement breached rules on HMOs and issued penalty notices. The guardian companies challenged the decision but, in a ruling last year, President of the Lands Chamber Fancourt J backed the council.
Lawyers for a group of property guardian companies today told judges at the Court of Appeal that buildings inhabited by property guardians should not be classified as houses in multiple occupation.
The guardian companies, Global Guardians Management and Global 100, are seeking to overturn a ruling in the Upper Tribal last year relating to an empty office block owned by NHS Property Services. Global Guardians agreed to look after the property and created 30 bedrooms, along with shared kitchens, bathrooms and toilets. Guardians paid a monthly license fee to live there.
The local council decided that the arrangement breached rules on HMOs and issued penalty notices. The guardian companies challenged the decision but, in a ruling last year, President of the Lands Chamber Fancourt J backed the council.
He found that the companies and their director had been operating an unlicensed HMO. He upheld fines of £18,000 and rent repayment orders of £36,000.
The companies and their director appealed again, and the case is being heard today by three judges in the Court of Appeal.
The case turns on the interpretation of various provisions in the Housing Act of 2004, the companies’ lawyer told the judges today.
“I think that there isn’t much disagreement between all of the parties that the definitions in the Housing Act of 2004 are not drafted with absolute clarity, which is unfortunate given that these definitions can be part of establishing whether or not someone has committed a criminal offence,” he said.
Specifically, the appellants plan to challenge the so-called “sole use criteria” of the act and the definition of the “person having control”.
He also said the guardians themselves were working while living in the building as they were guarding the property. He said it could be argued that the property should be treated as a live/work unit, which is subject to different regulations.
The case has been listed for one day and the judges will hand down their decision at a later date.
Global Guardians Management Ltd and others v London Borough of Hounslow and others
Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Singh and Lord Justice Dingemans) 11 October 2022
To send feedback, e-mail newsdesk@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGPropertyNews
Photo by Ray Tang/Shutterstock (1160552f)