Introduction
Introduction
The Housing Act 2004 introduced licensing requirements for certain houses in multiple occupation (“HMOs”). Failure to comply with those requirements is a criminal offence which can lead to prosecution, or to the imposition of a financial penalty by the local housing authority under section 249A of the 2004 Act; commission of the offence can also be the basis of a rent repayment order. The 2004 Act sets out a number of definitions of HMOs, and Schedule 14 to the 2004 Act sets out certain buildings that nevertheless are not HMOs for the purposes of the licensing requirements. The present appeal is against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal that two buildings do not require an HMO licence because they fall within paragraph 2B of Schedule 14. The point was decided as a preliminary issue in an appeal to the FTT from financial penalties imposed by a local housing authority (pursuant to paragraph 10 of Schedule 13A to the 2004 Act).
The appellant is the Nottingham City Council; the respondent is Housing 35 Plus Limited, which manages the two properties concerned: 27 Palin Street, Nottingham, NG7 5AD, and 29 Eland Street, Nottingham, NG7 7DY. The appellant was represented by Mr Andrew Lane and the respondent by Mr Jonathan Manning, both of counsel, and I am grateful to them both.
![[2024] UKUT 349 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)