The Council sought a declaration that certain accomodation provided by the defendant constituted housing in multiple accomodation (HMO), and that it therefore required a licence from the Council under the 2004 Act. There were two storeys of business accomodation, and one of residential. The parties disputed whether, in counting the number of storeys in the building, the basement and attic were to be included.
Held: The application was dismissed. In all respects other than business premises the search was for storeys comprised within the HMO itself, rather than the building in which it was located; it was the HMO which was in issue, and not the building itself, and ‘It is the HMO that must comprise the three storeys and not the building in which an HMO happens to be found.’
The court should ‘strive to avoid a construction which penalises a person where the legislator’s intention to do is doubtful, or penalises him or her in a way which was not made clear’.
Blake J
[2013] EWHC 508 (Admin)
Bailii
Housing Act 2004
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bristol City Council v Digs (Bristol) Ltd Admn 27-Mar-2014
The council appealed against rejection of its complaint that the defendant had used their maisonette as a house in in multiple occupation without first obtaining the licence required. The parties had disputed whether two maisonettes amounted to more . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.471962