Nottingham City Council v Dominic Parr Trevor Parr Associates Ltd

The Housing Act 2004 permits an HMO licence to regulate both how accommodation is used and the class of persons occupying it. A condition restricting a particular room to full-time students may therefore fall within the power to regulate occupation. The licensing authority must still frame the condition so that it secures the relevant objective and can be policed in practice. Shared communal space may compensate for a small private bedroom where the tribunal considers the accommodation suitable and no prescribed bedroom-size standard applies. Conditions may be imposed on the HMO manager, with compliance secured through the letting arrangements and licensing regime.

The appeal arose from two HMO licences granted by Nottingham City Council for student houses containing attic bedrooms below the Council’s preferred usable floor-area standard. The First-tier Tribunal deleted conditions prohibiting or restricting sleeping use of those rooms and, in one case, substituted a condition limiting occupation to a full-time student for up to 10 months each year. The Upper Tribunal upheld the substance of that approach and directed inclusion of the student condition for the second property.

The Council appealed, arguing that the Housing Act 2004 concerned the physical characteristics of the property rather than occupiers’ personal characteristics, and that the condition was irrational and unenforceable. The central issue was whether the condition was within the statutory licensing power and capable of achieving its purpose.

1. Appeal dismissed, subject to variation. The licences were to be amended to require a sitting room and kitchen/diner to remain available for communal use and to prohibit the letting of other bedrooms to persons who were not students engaged in full-time education.
2. Section 67(2)(a) of the Housing Act 2004 authorises conditions restricting the use or occupation of particular parts of an HMO by persons occupying it. The reference to occupation by persons is broad enough to permit a restriction to occupation by students. The Act contains no contextual limitation excluding conditions based on the general characteristics or activities of occupiers.
3. The statutory scheme recognises that occupiers’ characteristics and activities may be relevant. A condition directed to the manager does not contravene section 67(5), because the occupier is bound through the tenancy or licence agreement rather than directly by the HMO licence condition.
4. The tribunal was entitled to make the evaluative judgment that communal living space could compensate for a small bedroom. There were no prescribed bedroom-size standards applicable to these properties, and the guidance relied upon could be used as a point of reference without changing the statutory meaning.
5. The condition had to be framed more completely. Suitable additional conditions could address communal-space availability and the student occupation of the remaining bedrooms. Enforcement was not impracticable, since non-compliance by the manager could lead to revocation of the licence.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Nottingham City Council v Dominic Parr Trevor Parr Associates Ltd, [2017] EWCA Civ 188. Appeal from the Upper Tribunal was dismissed, subject to amendment of the licences.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the Council’s appeals and upheld the substance of the First-tier Tribunal’s approach, directing inclusion of the student-occupation condition for 50 Bute Avenue.
• First-tier Tribunal: allowed the respondents’ appeals against the relevant licence conditions and substituted a student-occupation condition for 44 Rothesay Avenue.