HMO Licence Conditions Appeal: Gas Safety Certificate and Refuse Collection
📌 In brief
The claimant appealed conditions in his HMO licences regarding gas safety certificates and refuse collection. The appeal was dismissed for gas safety but allowed in part for refuse collection, emphasising statutory compliance.
⚖️ Legal holding
The conditions in HMO licences regarding gas safety certificates and refuse collection must comply with statutory requirements.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines offences related to the licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). It states that if an HMO should be licensed but isn't, an offence is committed by those controlling or managing the HMO or by landlords/licensors with superior rights over the property. Additionally, it mentions offences for knowingly allowing an HMO to be occupied by more households than authorized by the license and for failing to comply with license conditions. Defenses include proving a reasonable excuse for the actions taken.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant appealed conditions in his HMO licences regarding gas safety certificates and refuse collection. The appeal failed for gas safety but succeeded partially for refuse collection.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant appealed two conditions in his HMO licences regarding gas safety certificates and refuse collection. The appeal was dismissed for gas safety but allowed in part for refuse collection, emphasising statutory compliance.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
1
Case References : CHI/00HN/HML/2019/0012-4
Properties : 2 [ADDRESS]
[POSTCODE],
58 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
142 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
and Poole Council
Type of Application : HMO Licence conditions
Tribunal Members : Judge D [NAME] of Decision : 19th September 2019
_______________________________________________
DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2 1. These are three related applications by Mr [APPELLANT] being appeals against two conditions imposed in HMO Licences granted to him by the Respondent Council in respect of the [RESPONDENT]. The conditions relate to the provision of an annual gas safety certificate and refuse collection.
2. The Tribunal gave directions on 12th July 2019 requiring the parties to set out their cases and notifying of its intention to deal with the matter without a hearing unless either party requested one. They have both provided their representations in writing and neither has requested a hearing.
3. The conditions under appeal are: “1. A gas safety certificate obtained in respect of the house within the last 12 months must be provided annually to the Council if gas is supplied to the house”; and “16. Comply with the local area refuse collection scheme and ensure the provision of the correct bins at all times” 4. The Respondent says, through Mr [RESPONDENT], their Private Sector Housing Enforcement Officer, in a statement dated 8th August 2019, that these provisions reflect mandatory requirements set out in schedule 4 of the Housing Act 2004 and therefore must remain.
5. Schedule 4 of the Housing Act 2004 provides as follows: “Conditions to be included in licences under Part 2 or 3
3 1 (1) A licence under Part 2 or 3 must include the following conditions. (2) Conditions requiring the licence holder, if gas is supplied to the house, to produce to the local housing authority annually for their inspection a gas safety certificate obtained in respect of the house within the last 12 months. … 1C. Additional conditions to be included in licences under Part 2: household waste Where the HMO is in England, a licence under Part 2 must include conditions requiring the licence holder to comply with any scheme which is provided by the local housing authority to the licence holder and which relates to the storage and disposal of household waste at the HMO pending collection.
6. Mr [APPELLANT] contends otherwise. He asserts that there are no such mandatory requirements. Instead he points to the Licensing and Management of Housing in Multiple Occupation and other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007, in which regulation 7 stipulates, (1) The manager must supply to the local housing authority within 7 days of receiving a request in writing from that authority the latest gas appliance test certificate he has received in relation to the testing of any gas appliance at the HMO by a recognised engineer.
4 7. He relies on that regulation as imposing a lesser obligation than that included in the licence.
8. Further in relation to waste management, he relies on the same regulations, at regulation 3, which provides “(1) Regulations 4 to 10 shall apply subject to the following limitations— (a) the manager's duty shall only apply in relation to such parts of the HMO over which it would be reasonable to expect the licence holder, in all the circumstances, to exercise control; and (b) the manager's duty to maintain or keep in repair is to be construed as requiring a standard of maintenance or repair that is reasonable in all the circumstances, taking account of the age, character and prospective life of the house and the locality in which it is situated. (2) Nothing in regulations 4 to 10 shall— (a) require or authorise anything to be done in connection with the water supply or drainage or the supply of gas or electricity otherwise than in accordance with any enactment; or (b) oblige the manager to take, in connection with those matters, any action which is the responsibility of a local authority or any other person, other than such action as
5 may be necessary to bring the matter promptly to the attention of the authority or person concerned.
9. As well as regulation 10 “10. Duty to provide waste disposal facilities The manager must— (a) ensure that sufficient bins or other suitable receptacles are provided that are adequate for the requirements of each household occupying the HMO for the storage of refuse and litter pending their disposal; and (b) make such further arrangements for the disposal of refuse and litter from the HMO as may be necessary, having regard to any service for such disposal provided by the local authority.” 10.
Accordingly, he says that both conditions under appeal are not only overly onerous but are not mandatory requirements.
11. The Applicant has not properly addressed the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 as set out above which are clear in their terms. It is not in doubt that the 2004 provisions for HMO’s apply to each of the properties and that he is required to hold a licence in respect of them. In that regard, the licence is a licence required by Part 2 of the Act. That is clear from the title of the licences that have been granted which state on their face that they are made under Part 2.
6 12. In respect of gas certification, there is a material distinction between the annual gas safety certificate, of which the Respondent has mirrored the wording of paragraph 1 (2) of Schedule 4 and that of certification in relation to individual appliances under regulation 3 of the 2007 Regulations. The latter, by its nature refers to concerns that may arise in respect of new installations or existing ones that have become faulty during the course of a year. In respect of those, the local authority has the ability to require certification on an ad hoc basis on request. This in no way undermines the additional, separate and mandatory requirement in respect of annual certification.
Accordingly, the appeal against that condition fails.
13. A similar situation pertains in respect of waste management. The 2007 Regulations do not cut down on any mandatory requirements set out in the 2004 Act, instead they must be read alongside them. However, in this instance, the Respondent, unlike with gas certifications, has not precisely mirrored the wording of Schedule 4. Instead, it has added the wording ‘at all times’ to the condition. Either this is implicit in the statutory language or it creates a greater burden. To that end, the Tribunal considers that condition 16 of each of the three licences should be amended to remove that gloss and by this determination so directs. Other than that, the condition stands as per the licence.
14. Finally, in terms of the application fee paid by the Applicant, although a variation has been made to one condition, it is not on any basis that he has contended for and the Tribunal declines to award reimbursement.
7
Judge D [NAME]
8 Appeals
A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28- day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Must Provide Annual Gas Safety Certificate, Refuse Collection Condit…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant's Appeal Partially Successful: Gas Safety Certificates Unchanged, …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) HMO Licence Upheld But Conditions Vary
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal rules on service charges for tenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Reasonableness of Service Charges for Roof Rep…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Two Items in Service Charge
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Reasonableness of Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Financial Penalties for Non-Compliance with Imp…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Service Charges for Flat Roof Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charges and Management Fees
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charges and Management Fees for Flats in Mixed-Use Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Appeal Against HMO Fire Alarm Condition
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
- Service charges are considered reasonable if they comply with statutory requirements and lease terms.
- Tenants can challenge the reasonableness of service charges under relevant sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
- Conditions in HMO licences regarding gas safety certificates and refuse collection must adhere to statutory mandates.
- Local housing authorities must ensure that financial penalties for non-compliance are reasonable.
- Management fees and service charges must be appropriately apportioned among lessees and be reasonable.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No clear losing factors identified in the provided similar cases.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided that the conditions in the HMO licences regarding gas safety certificates and refuse collection must comply with statutory requirements.
Who was involved?
The claimant, who holds HMO licences, and the local housing authority.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the gas safety certificate condition must be maintained as it complies with statutory requirements, while the refuse collection condition was modified to align with statutory requirements.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 2004 and the Licensing and Management of Housing in Multiple Occupation and other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations Yöntem 2007.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the claimant's assertion that the conditions in the licences were overly onerous and not mandatory requirements.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the conditions in their HMO licences comply with statutory requirements.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Statements and licences provided by the claimant and the local housing authority mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
