£35,000 St Helens HMO fine shows how a five-person shared house can trigger multiple penalties

A five-person shared house has led to £35,000 in civil penalties in St Helens — £10,000 for operating without an HMO licence and £25,000 for breaches of HMO management rules. For London landlords, the message is blunt: the risk is not just failing to license a property, but failing to run it properly once let.

According to the council’s published account, the penalties were issued under the Housing Act 2004 and the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006. That matters because it shows how one property can expose a landlord to separate financial penalties for separate compliance failures, without any need for a prosecution first.

The key point: licensing and management are different risks

Many landlords treat HMO compliance as a licence application problem. That is too narrow. Even where the licensing position is being dealt with, councils can still act over the way the property is managed.

The source material does not specify every defect alleged in the St Helens case, and it is important not to invent them. But HMO management regulations typically cover fire safety measures, means of escape, maintenance of common parts, utility installations, refuse storage and the display of manager details. A landlord can therefore be exposed on two fronts: whether the property should have been licensed and whether it met management standards in practice.

Why a five-person let is a critical threshold

The national starting point is straightforward. In England, a property will generally require a mandatory HMO licence if it is occupied by five or more people, forming more than one household, who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom.

That is why this case matters well beyond St Helens. Some landlords still associate HMO enforcement with larger bedsit buildings or obviously converted properties. In reality, an ordinary shared house with five unrelated occupiers can fall squarely into the mandatory licensing regime.

For London landlords, the position is often stricter. Many boroughs also operate additional licensing schemes for smaller HMOs, and some use selective licensing for wider parts of the private rented sector. The practical result is simple: a property that looks low-risk on paper may still need a licence depending on the borough.

Do not confuse licensing with planning

The St Helens report also refers to a consultation on requiring planning permission for changes of use to small HMOs. That is a separate issue from licensing, and a consultation is not the same thing as a rule already in force.

London landlords should keep the same distinction in mind. In many boroughs, Article 4 directions remove permitted development rights for a change from a standard dwellinghouse to a small HMO. So a property may need planning permission as well as an HMO licence. Passing one test does not satisfy the other.

Where landlords and agents usually get caught out

The recurring failure points are predictable:

• a landlord does not realise a sharer arrangement has crossed into HMO territory
• an agent assumes the landlord has dealt with licensing
• a portfolio owner applies one borough’s rules to another
• a property is marketed to unrelated sharers before anyone checks planning or licensing status

That is why enforcement cases often expose weak systems rather than a single missed form. If nobody can say with confidence whether a property is licensable, when the licence expires, what conditions apply and what records exist to prove compliance, the problem is usually deeper than the licence itself.

The compliance audit landlords should do now

For every shared property, check:

• number of occupiers
• number of households
• whether the property meets the HMO definition
• whether mandatory, additional or selective licensing applies
• whether any Article 4 or other planning restriction affects use
• licence status, expiry date and conditions
• gas safety and EICR records
• fire detection, alarms, emergency lighting and means of escape, where required
• inspection, repair and maintenance logs
• waste and refuse arrangements
• evidence that the manager’s details are available to occupiers where required

If an application has already been made, keep the application copy, fee receipt and council correspondence together. In enforcement work, the paper trail often matters almost as much as the physical condition of the property.

What to do if something has been missed

If you discover that a property should have been licensed, or that HMO management standards have not been properly documented, delay is the wrong response. The sensible course is to verify the position immediately, take advice where needed, and submit any required application or remedial plan without waiting for the next inspection or tenancy change.

Landlords and agents should also review the local authority’s published enforcement policy and civil penalty policy, where available. Those documents often explain how the council assesses seriousness, culpability and financial penalties.

Three actions to take this week

• Review every shared let occupied by three or more people from more than one household and confirm whether it is an HMO
• Check the borough rules for licensing and any relevant planning controls before the next letting or renewal
• Inspect and document fire safety, common parts, certificates, waste arrangements and manager information for each HMO

Rentals & Sales can help you audit a shared property against London HMO licensing and management rules before a council does it for you.