London Borough of Islington v The Unite Group Plc

For mandatory licensing under the Housing Act 2004 and the Licensing Order, the HMO itself must comprise three or more storeys. The height of the wider building is not decisive where the HMO is a self-contained flat within a purpose-built block. Article 3(3) supplements, but does not replace, the basic requirement in Article 3(2)(a). A self-contained cluster flat occupying one storey therefore does not meet the three-storey threshold merely because other self-contained flats occupy storeys elsewhere in the building.

The claimant local authority sought a declaration that self-contained cluster flats in Charles Morton Court, a purpose-built block of student accommodation, required mandatory HMO licences. The parties agreed that each cluster flat was an HMO under Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004, occupied by persons from more than one household, and that some contained five or more occupants.

The issue was whether the storeys occupied by other self-contained flats in the building could be counted under article 3(3)(f) of the Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Description) (England) Order 2006, so that the individual HMOs satisfied the three-storey condition in article 3(2)(a).

1. Application dismissed. The defendant was granted the declaration sought.
2. Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 distinguishes the HMO from the building in which it is situated. The relevant question under article 3(2)(a) of the Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Description) (England) Order 2006 is whether the HMO, or the relevant part constituting it, comprises three or more storeys.
3. Article 3(3) is supplementary to article 3(2). It contains special rules for counting business premises and certain basements, attics, mezzanine floors and other uses associated with the HMO. It does not give article 3(2)(a) a wider meaning by treating every storey in the building as part of the HMO.
4. The contemporaneous consultation material and explanatory documents were admissible aids because they identified the mischief and targeted the higher-risk categories of HMO. They supported a scheme directed at the size and configuration of the HMO, rather than at every self-contained flat located in a building of three or more storeys. The penal consequences of the claimant’s construction also reinforced the need for clear statutory language.
5. Article 3(3)(f) did not bring the cluster flats within mandatory licensing. Each flat was self-contained and occupied one storey. The other residential storeys were not part of that HMO, and adding the ground-floor business premises did not reach the three-storey threshold.