Tribunal Decision Overturns HMO Occupancy Restriction
In a significant ruling concerning the regulation of HMOs, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property) has overturned a condition imposed by Portsmouth City Council limiting the occupancy of a property. The tribunal’s decision, delivered on February 24 2025, allows the property to continue housing four tenants rather than reducing the number to three, as the council had required. Here we take a look at the decision and the implications.
Background of the Case
The Applicant, Elizabeth Collins, owner of the property, challenged a condition attached to her HMO licence by Portsmouth City Council, which required her to take "reasonable steps to reduce the occupancy of the property from four to three occupiers." The property, a four-bedroom mid-terrace house, had been functioning as an HMO for 24 years and had been subject to Additional Licensing requirements imposed by the Council in September 2023.
Portsmouth City Council had cited concerns about space standards and communal facilities as justification for the occupancy reduction, referencing both national statutory regulations and local space and amenity standards. The council’s position was that the communal space within the property was insufficient for four tenants to cook, eat, and socialise comfortably.
Key Arguments from Both Sides
Applicant’s Position
The Applicant argued that:
The HMO had been successfully let to four tenants for over two decades without issue.
The bedrooms exceeded the legal minimum size requirements under the Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Mandatory Conditions of Licences) (England) Regulations 2018.
The kitchen, though slightly smaller than the council’s recommended 6m², was well-equipped and functional.
The council’s space standards were guidelines rather than legally binding requirements.
A comparable HMO within the same area had been licensed for four occupants despite being smaller in total area.
The tenants were satisfied with the property and had provided letters of support.
Council’s Position
Portsmouth City Council maintained that:
The kitchen, at an estimated 4.86m², was too small for four occupants to use comfortably.
The communal living/dining room (7.25m²) was insufficient under the council’s space standards, which required a minimum of 11m² for a four-person HMO.
The box room on the first floor did not provide meaningful additional living space.
Reducing occupancy would allow the vacated room to be repurposed as additional communal space.
The council’s standards aimed to ensure adequate living conditions, preventing tenants from being forced to eat or socialize in their bedrooms.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision
The Tribunal carefully reviewed the case, including a detailed inspection of the property, scale plans, and the submitted evidence.
The key findings were:
The bedrooms were adequately sized, with an average of 10.75m², exceeding the 10m² minimum standard.
While the kitchen was smaller than the council’s recommended 6m², it was well-equipped and functional.
The living/dining room, though below the 11m² threshold, could reasonably accommodate dining and socializing, particularly with the applicant’s proposed furniture layout.
The box room (3.76m²) provided additional storage and utility, helping to offset the shortfall in communal space.
The cumulative shortfall in kitchen and living space (5.29m²) was balanced by the excess bedroom space (6.76m²).
The council’s space standards were guidelines rather than absolute legal requirements.
Based on these findings, the tribunal ruled that the property could reasonably function as a four-person HMO, and the occupancy restriction imposed by Portsmouth City Council was unnecessary. The tribunal revoked the condition requiring occupancy reduction.
The Tribunal’s decision allows both parties the right to appeal. While the Applicant is likely to consider this outcome fair, it remains to be seen whether the Local Authority will choose to challenge the ruling within the 28-day appeal window.
Implications of the Decision
This decision sets a precedent for future HMO licensing disputes where Local Authorities impose space-related occupancy restrictions. It underscores that while Councils have the authority to enforce space and amenity standards, such regulations must be applied flexibly and reasonably, considering the overall suitability of the property rather than rigidly adhering to recommended sizes.
Four Key Takeaways from the Ruling
Standards vs. Local Guidelines
The ruling confirms that Local Authorities must balance their space standards with existing legal frameworks, particularly when considering occupancy restrictions.
Precedent for Other HMOs
This decision may influence how other landlords challenge similar restrictions imposed by Local Authorities.
Weight Given to Tenant Satisfaction
The tribunal considered letters from tenants supporting the four-person occupancy, emphasising that tenant experience matters in licensing disputes.
Council’s Discretion Has Limits
While councils can set guidelines, their decisions must be reasonable and justifiable in light of the actual conditions of the property.
Further Advice for Landlords or Agents
Landlords operating HMOs or areas of property licensing should:
Consult professionals or property management experts if faced with restrictive licensing conditions.
Review their property layouts and ensure they comply with statutory minimum standards.
Potentially challenge any licensing conditions that appear to go beyond legal requirements.
Consider providing evidence from tenants to demonstrate satisfaction with the living arrangements.
