The Upper Tribunal held on 7 May 2026 that a building being a house in multiple occupation does not prevent each flat in it being a "house" under Part 3 selective licensing, upholding four penalties against a Leeds landlord.
Key facts
- Who: Landlords and local authorities dealing with selective licensing of flats in a building that is a house in multiple occupation (HMO) under s.254(4) of the Housing Act 2004
- From: 7 May 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: Mohammed Abid Zaman v Leeds City Council [2026] UKUT 180 (LC)
In Mohammed Abid Zaman v Leeds City Council [2026] UKUT 180 (LC), decided on 7 May 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dismissed a landlord's appeal against four financial penalties, one for each flat in a converted building in Beeston, Leeds.
Background
Mr Zaman owns a three-storey end-of-terrace house converted into four residential units. Flats 2, 3 and 4 are self-contained. Flat 1 is not: it had a kitchen but no bathroom, and its occupant used the first-floor bathroom. The flats have separate electricity meters and are served by a single boiler.
Leeds City Council designated Beeston a selective licensing area under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 from January 2020. Mr Zaman applied for no licence until July 2024, after an inspection. On 18 February 2025 the council issued a penalty notice for each flat for offences under s.95 of the Act. After review, each penalty was £2,125.
Mr Zaman appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. He argued that the building was an HMO under s.254(4), so the flats were not caught by Part 3. Alternatively, he said any offence was one of failing to license the building as an HMO, so there should be one penalty, not four. He then appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
The question
Does a building being an HMO within s.254 prevent each of its dwellings being treated as a "house" for Part 3 selective licensing?
The decision
His Honour Judge Johns KC held that it does not. Each dwelling may still be a house under Part 3, so the council was entitled to impose a penalty for each of the four flats. The appeal was dismissed.
The reasoning
The judge relied on Northumberland Mews Ltd v Thanet District Council [2022] UKUT 179 (LC), under which both a building and the flats in it can be Part 3 houses. Mr Zaman did not argue that case was wrong. He argued only that it should be distinguished because it did not concern an s.254(4) HMO. The judge rejected that.
He found two features of the Act pointing against a different result where the building is an HMO. First, s.85(1) expressly excludes from Part 3 the HMOs to which Part 2 applies. Parliament did not, in clear language, change the Part 3 regime for an HMO to which Part 2 does not apply. Second, Parts 2 and 3 are different regimes, and the relevant definition for Part 3 is "house", not the HMO tests in s.254.
The judge also held that article 5 of the Regulations, a transitional provision, did not undermine his conclusion. It concerns HMOs required to be licensed under Part 2, and this building was not one. He added that the appeal did not decide how far the s.85(1) exclusion reaches for flats within a Part 2 HMO.
What this means for landlords and licensing authorities
The ruling concerns a building that is an HMO under s.254(4) but is not an HMO to which Part 2 applies. In that situation, the building's HMO status does not by itself take its flats outside Part 3, and in this case a separate penalty was upheld for each flat.
The judgment does not decide how s.85(1) applies to flats within a Part 2 HMO.
Any party may appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, but only with permission. An application for permission must first be sent to the Upper Tribunal within one month of the decision being sent to the parties. If a costs application is made within 14 days, the one month runs from the date the Tribunal's costs decision is sent. If the Tribunal refuses permission, a further application can be made to the Court of Appeal.
Sources
- Mohammed Abid Zaman v Leeds City Council [2026] UKUT 180 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 7 May 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/180