AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·22 May 2019

First-tier Tribunal Amends HMO Licence Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal changed a condition on a house in multiple occupation (HMO) licence. They removed the old condition and added new requirements, such as maintaining a CCTV system and increasing housing inspections.

⚖️ Legal holding

Conditions attached to an HMO licence can be amended by mutual agreement between the parties.

Topics

HMO licencesCCTV systemsTenant registration

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal amended a condition on an HMO licence, removing one condition and replacing it with new terms.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal amended a condition on an HMO licence, removing the original condition and replacing it with new terms agreed upon by the parties involved.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/30UE/HML/2018/0003

Property : 6 and 10, [ADDRESS]. Chorley, Lancashire [POSTCODE]

Appellant: [redacted]

Respondent : [redacted]

Type of Application : Appeal against imposition of a condition attached to HMO Licence

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision : 17th December 2018

Decision : The conditions attached to the HMO licence shall be amended by removing the condition number 2 and replacing it with the conditions set out in paragraph 3, below

Background

1 This matter has previously been considered by the Tribunal which published an interim decision on 17th August 2018.

2 Thereafter the parties have sought to resolve the difficulties that the Tribunal considered were presented by condition no.2 in the licence originally imposed by the Respondent.

3 The parties have now reached agreement to amend the condition as follows: (a) The Applicant will maintain the installed CCTV system in good working order at all times. (b) The Respondent will facilitate a meeting at approximately 3 monthly intervals to involve the attendance of the Applicant, an environmental health officer, PC [COUNSEL] (or her nominated replacement) and a representative of [NAME] (drug and alcohol services) to consider any issues that may require remedial action and to determine what, if any actions should be taken. (c) Housing standards inspections will be increased to 3-monthly intervals. (d) The Applicant will update the Council at the earliest reasonable opportunity of any changes to the register of tenants.

4 This condition should now be inserted in the licence appropriately.

[NAME] (CHAIRMAN)

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed9 cases

Allowed in Part3 cases

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

The parties agreed to maintain the installed CCTV system in good working order at all times.
The parties agreed to facilitate meetings every three months involving the applicant, an environmental health officer, a police constable, and a drug and alcohol services representative.
Housing standards inspections will be increased to three-monthly intervals as agreed by the parties.
The applicant agreed to update the Council promptly about any changes to the register of tenants.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal allowed the modification of an HMO licence condition for a property in Chorley, including changes to CCTV maintenance and regular meetings involving multiple stakeholders.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about modifying the conditions attached to an HMO licence for a property in Chorley, specifically addressing concerns related to CCTV maintenance and regular stakeholder meetings.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to allow the modification of the HMO licence condition because the changes addressed specific concerns and were agreed upon by the relevant authorities.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the agreement between the parties to modify the HMO licence condition to address specific concerns.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the modification of the HMO licence condition.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, it means that modifications to HMO licence conditions can be made if they address specific concerns and are agreed upon by the relevant authorities.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.