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 and who on average stayed for two years.
Held: The ruse of calling the letting of a house a residential club was ineffective to prevent the house becoming a house in multiple occupancy. The need for statutory control for safety reasons was overwhelming. Multiple occupancy is not capable of full definition, but one test was whether a relationship existed between those living in the house which brought them together.
Gazette 08-Sep-1999, Times 30-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 2046, [1999] 3 EGLR 17, (1999) 32 HLR 138
Housing Act 1985 Part XI
England and Wales
CitedBarnes v Sheffield City Council CA 1995
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 . .

Cited by:
CitedHossack, 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. . .
CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedHossack, 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 January 2021; Ref: scu.146961