Oxford Hotel Investments Limited v Great Yarmouth Borough Council

For the purposes of the standard HMO test, accommodation is within Housing Act 2004, s 254(2)(f), if it lacks one or more basic amenities. A microwave oven alone does not constitute cooking facilities under s 254(8). The question is context-specific and requires consideration of the statutory purpose and scheme. A full kitchen will plainly qualify, while accommodation lacking food storage, food preparation space and associated facilities may not. The statutory controls are intended to protect vulnerable occupiers and should not readily be avoided by providing minimal equipment.

Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd operated a building containing rooms occupied substantially by persons placed there under homelessness duties. Great Yarmouth Borough Council declared the building to be a house in multiple occupation and refused to revoke the declaration. The First-tier Tribunal confirmed that decision, finding that the rooms lacked cooking facilities and that the occupation was both the occupiers’ only or main residence and a significant use of the accommodation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the interpretation of the basic-amenities requirement, contending that a microwave constituted cooking facilities and that the presence of any one basic amenity prevented HMO status. It also challenged the findings concerning only or main residence and significant use.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal correctly concluded that the building satisfied the standard HMO test.

2. The argument that the presence of any one basic amenity prevented the application of s 254(2)(f) was contrary to the statutory language. That provision applies where accommodation is lacking in one or more basic amenities.

3. A microwave alone was not cooking facilities for the purposes of s 254(8). Statutory interpretation required attention to the purpose and legislative scheme of the Act. The legislation was intended to protect vulnerable and disadvantaged occupiers and to prevent buildings that should be controlled as HMOs escaping regulation through minimal provision. The basic amenities also help distinguish a self-contained flat from other accommodation. A microwave could not ordinarily turn a room into a flat.

4. The Regulations did not materially assist interpretation. They were made at a different time, used the expression kitchen facilities rather than cooking facilities, and addressed standards under s 65 rather than the statutory definition of an HMO.

5. The assessment was fact-sensitive. A full kitchen would clearly provide cooking facilities. The rooms in question had no relevant storage or food-preparation area and contained only a microwave, fridge and kettle. They therefore lacked cooking facilities.

6. The FTT was entitled to find that the occupiers used the rooms as their only or main residence. That was a question of fact, and the evidence supported the inference. The appellant’s new analysis of booking records was not admitted on appeal.

7. The challenge to the finding of significant use under s 255 failed. The issue had been identified before the FTT and was not contested there. The statutory presumption in s 260 also supported the conclusion.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): appeal from the First-tier Tribunal was dismissed.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): by decision dated 21 January 2025, confirmed the local authority’s refusal to revoke the HMO declaration.