Claimant letting rooms in property under individual oral agreements – Occupants sharing living room, kitchen and bathrooms – Council serving notice to execute works pursuant to section 352 of Housing Act 1985 as amended – Claimant appealing against notice – Whether property “house in multiple occupation” within Part XI of 1985 Act as amended – Recorder allowing appeal – Council’s appeal allowed
The claimant was the freehold owner of 28 St Peter’s Street, London N1, which was a three-storey house with a basement. The accommodation consisted of 10 bedrooms on four floors, a kitchen, two bathrooms and a living room on the ground floor, and an entrance hall. The claimant occupied one of the bedrooms and let out the rest of the property under individual oral agreements, for unspecified periods. Each occupant had his own bedroom and was entitled to share the living room, the kitchen and the bathrooms.
On 22 November 1996 the council received a complaint from a previous occupier of the property who was concerned about the inadequate provision of fire precautions and means of escape. On 29 November 1996 an environmental officer completed a risks assessment survey and gave the property a rating of high risk category A. On 25 March 1997 the council served a notice to execute works pursuant to section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 as amended, on the basis that the property was in multiple occupation. On 11 April 1997 the claimant appealed against the notice. The recorder in the county court allowed the appeal on the ground that the property was not a “house in multiple occupation” within Part XI of the Act. The council appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The recorder had erred in his conclusion through too close an adherence to the factors referred to in the case of Barnes v Sheffield City Council (1995) 27 HLR 719, and had overlooked two crucial distinctions between that case and the claimant’s. First, in Barnes the occupants were only four or five in number, whereas in the claimant’s property there were nine to ten. Second, in Barnes the students who occupied the relevant property, came to that house as a preformed group for a predetermined period, whereas the occupants came to the claimant’s property one by one for indefinite and dissimilar periods. However much weight was attached to the communal life of the occupants in the claimant’s property, there was not a sufficient relationship for them to have formed a single household. Accordingly it was to be concluded that the property was a house in multiple occupation.
The claimant appeared in person; Robert Jay QC and Kelvin Rutledge (instructed by the solicitor to Islington London Borough Council) appeared for the defendants.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
