A group of five students was held to form a single household. The court identified the factors to assist in identifying whether a house was being occupied as a single household or not: the origin of the tenancy; whether the residents arrived in a single group or were independently recruited by the landlord; the extent to which the facilities were shared; whether the occupants were responsible for the whole house (including the common parts) or just their particular rooms; the extent to which the residents can and do lock their doors; the responsibility for filling vacancies: whether that of the existing occupants or the landlord; the allocation of rooms: whether by the occupants or the landlord; the size of the establishment; the stability of the group; the mode of living: to what extent communal and to what extent independent.
Held: The power to impose conditions permitted a condition defined by reference to the general characteristics and activities of an occupier. A restriction of occupation to ‘occupation by students’ was a restriction on ‘occupation by persons’. The conditions imposed by the FTT were not unreasonable.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
(1995) 27 HLR 719
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Guy Rogers v London Borough of Islington CA 30-Jul-1999
A house had ten bedrooms. One was retained by the owner for use some two months a year, the other nine were let to people in their twenties who had just completed their further education and were embarking on careers in the professions or banking . .
Cited – Hossack, Regina (on the Application of) v Kettering Borough Council and Another Admn 25-Mar-2002
The landowner sought to use houses as temporary accommodation for young people in need. The council asserted that this use of each of the properties was ‘use as a dwelling house by the residents living together as a single household’ under class C3. . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Hossack) v Kettering Borough Council and another CA 25-Jun-2002
A neighbour challenged the use of houses as temporary accommodation for homeless youths. The properties housed up to six youths, who, the council claimed lived together as a single unit, and therefore came within Class C3.
Held: Nothing in the . .
Cited – Hossack, Regina (on the Application of) v Kettering Borough Council and Another Admn 31-Jul-2003
The claimant lived near houses used for the occupation by troubled youths. She complained that the occupation was in breach of planning control.
Held: The authority had properly considered the issues it was required to consider and the . .
Cited – Nottingham City Council v Parr and Another SC 10-Oct-2018
The Council appealed from refusal of conditions it had attached on licensing houses wit multiple accommodation.
Held: The power to impose conditions under sections 64 and 67, Housing Act 2004, in order to make an HMO suitable for a particular . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.180694