Leasehold — House in multiple occupation — Statutory notice limiting number of people accommodated — Repair works to comply with notice — Application for council grant — Council refusing grant because application invalid and house not in multiple occupation — Whether compliance with form of application mandatory — High Court dismissing application for judicial review of council decision
The applicant was the leaseholder of 106 Gloucester Road, London SW7 (the premises), a six-storey house. It was divided into 22 units of accommodation, 13 of which were self-contained bed-sitting-rooms incorporating a kitchen, bathroom and lavatory. The remaining nine units were bed-sitting-rooms which had separate cooking and bathing facilities, but shared the use of two lavatories. The local housing authority were responsible for the control of the premises. On March 8 1992 the housing authority, relying on their powers pursuant to section 189 and 352 of the Housing Act 1985, served notices under each provision in respect of the premises. The orders required a considerable amount of building works to secure compliance with them. In October 1992 the authority, relying on their powers pursuant to section 358 of the Housing Act, served a further notice on the applicant limiting the number of persons who were permitted to reside in each of the units of accommodation and in particular limited the use of eight of the bed-sitting-rooms with shared facilities.
The applicant applied for a grant in respect of the work required to be carried out to comply with the notices. The authority refused the application on the basis that it was invalid as it did not contain all the particulars required and that the premises were no longer a house in multiple occupation for grant purposes. The applicant applied for judicial review of that decision. Section 101 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provided that grants were payable by local housing authorities towards the cost of work required for the improvement or repair of dwelling houses in multiple occupation or the common parts of buildings containing one or more flats (HMO grants). Under section 102 any application for a grant had to be in writing specifying the premises to which it related and particulars of the work for which the grant was required.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. Under section 102(4) of the 1989 Act an application “shall” not be validly made unless in the prescribed form. The requirement for particulars was mandatory.
2. The scheme of Part VIII of the 1989 Act did not support a regime which would allow multiple grants. Section 113 made it plain that the purpose of a grant was to meet “an” application in respect of works required to comply with a particular notice.
3. For purposes of the 1989 Act a “house in multiple occupation” meant a house which was occupied by persons who did not form a single household. It did not include any part of such a house which was occupied as a separate dwelling by persons who did form a single household. In this case, a number of the units were self-contained and did not share amenities. The local authority could not be criticised for concluding that the alterations to the premises rendered them outside the definition of a house in multiple occupation for purposes of the grant provisions.
Declan O’Mahony (instructed by Bury & Walkers, of Leeds) appeared for the applicant; Timothy Straker (instructed by the solicitor to Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council) appeared for the housing authority.