Mohammed Abid Zaman v Leeds City Council [2026] UKUT 180 (LC)

[2026] UKUT 180 (LC)

Case Nos: LC-2025-756

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)

Between

MOHAMMED ABID ZAMANAppellant

LEEDS CITY COUNCILRespondent

AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)

REF: MAN/00DA/HNA/2025/0631 & /0642-0644

7 May 2026

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

HOUSING – HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION - CIVIL PENALTY – Part 3 licensing schemes and HMOs – whether flats in a building can each be a house for the purposes of Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 if the building is an HMO within s.254(4)

1 Cranbrook Avenue, Leeds, LS11 7AX

His Honour Judge Johns KC

Determination on written representations

The following cases were referred to in this decision:

Brown v Hyndburn Borough Council[2018] EWCA Civ 242

Northumberland Mews Ltd v Thanet District Council[2022] UKUT 179 (LC)

Date 2026-05-07

Introduction

[1]Does the fact that a building is a house in multiple occupation within the meaning of s.254 of the Housing Act 2004 (the Act) prevent each of the dwellings in the building being treated as houses for the purposes of the selective licensing scheme in Part 3 of the Act? That is the question raised by this appeal. The answer, in my judgment and for the reasons which follow, is that each of the dwellings may still be houses under Part 3. That answer means that the respondent, Leeds City Council (Leeds CC), was entitled to impose financial penalties on the appellant, Mohammed Abid Zaman (Mr Zaman), for each of the four flats in the building known as 1 Cranbrook Avenue, Beeston, Leeds (the Building).

Background and FTT Decision

[2]Mr Zaman owns the Building. It is a three-storey end of terrace house in Beeston which has been converted to comprise four residential units. Those units were described succinctly and helpfully by the First-tier Tribunal (the FTT) at [1] of its decision (the Decision). “Flat 1 is the ground floor front room. At the relevant time, there was a bathroom on the first floor, at the top of the first flight of stairs. Off the first floor landing there is a one bedroomed flat (Flat 3) and access to Flat 4 which is situated on the first and second floors. Flat 2 is situated at the rear of the building with a separate entrance and has no internal access to the rest of the building. The dwellings in the building have separate electricity meters and are serviced by a single boiler, which is situated in the bathroom. Flats 2, 3 and 4 are self-contained, in that all their amenities are behind their lockable front doors. Flat 1 is not self-contained – it contained, at the relevant time, a kitchen but no bathroom facilities. The occupant used the first floor bathroom.”

[3]Beeston has been designated by Leeds CC as a selective licensing area under Part 3 of the Act since January 2020. But Mr Zaman did not apply for any licence until July 2024, doing so only after an inspection by a Mr Frost of Leeds CC. Leeds CC issued financial penalty notices dated 18 February 2025 on Mr Zaman in respect of each of the four flats for offences under s.95 of the Act. As later reviewed, each penalty was in the sum of £2125.

[4]Mr Zaman appealed the penalties to the FTT. He argued that the Building was a house in multiple occupation (HMO) within s.254(4) of the Act and that, as a consequence, the four flats in the Building were not caught by the Part 3 selective licensing scheme. Alternatively, it meant that any offence was one to licence the Building as an HMO so that there should be one financial penalty, not four.

[5]The position of Leeds CC was that the selective provisions applied to each flat in the Building, each being a house, whether or not the Building was an HMO as defined by s.254(4).

[6]By its Decision, the FTT set out the law and stated at [30] that “There is no lacuna in the legislation which would have the effect of releasing 1 Cranbrook Avenue and the four residential units in it from the selective licensing provisions in Part 3 of the Act.”

[7]It made the important findings that, “The property is not a Part 2 HMO, ie an HMO defined for the purpose of section 55(2)(a) of the Act by article 4 of the Prescribed Descriptions Order. The Beeston area of Leeds is not subject to additional HMO licensing under section 56 in Part 2 of the Act, and so the property is not an HMO described at section 55(2)(b) of the Act.” ([32]).

[8]The significance of those findings is that there is a specific exclusion in Part 3 of the Act in respect of HMOs to which Part 2 of the Act applies; s.85(1)(a) providing that: “(1) Every Part 3 house must be licensed under this Part unless– (a) it is an HMO to which Part 2 applies (see section 55(2)) …”.

[9]The FTT accordingly went on to say (at [32]), “It follows that 1 Cranbrook Avenue is not included in the selective licensing exemption contained at section 85(1)(a) of the Act.”

[10]The FTT’s overall conclusion was stated at [35]. “It follows that each of the four residential units at 1 Cranbrook Avenue was subject to selective licensing and that financial penalties for failure to licence the flats have been properly imposed by the Respondent.”

The appeal

[11]The grounds of appeal are lengthy, ranging over 15 pages. Leaving out of account a third ground, for which permission to appeal was refused, they were fairly encapsulated by Judge Cooke when granting permission to appeal. “Whether a section 254 HMO can be treated as a number of separate dwellings for the purposes of selective licensing is a point which has not been decided at appellate level and is suitable for consideration by the Tribunal. Permission to appeal is granted on that issue, which is in effect a summary of the applicant’s grounds A and B”.

[12]It is common ground on the appeal that the Building is an HMO within the meaning of s.254(4) of the Act. Further, there is no challenge to the FTT’s determination that it was not an HMO to which Part 2 applied.

Relevant provisions of the Act

[13]The issue is one of statutory interpretation. It is therefore necessary to have clearly in mind the relevant statutory framework represented by the Act. That is particularly so given that, as was said by Hildyard J, sitting in the Court of Appeal, in Brown v Hyndburn Borough Council

[2018] EWCA Civ 242

at [7], “the architecture of the 2004 Act and its provisions … are of some complexity”. The first three Parts of the Act are related, as illustrated by s.3 in Part 1 of the Act. “(1) A local housing authority must keep the housing conditions in their area under review with a view to identifying any action that may need to be taken by them under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2). (2) The provisions are– (a) the following provisions of this Act– (i) this Part, (ii) Part 2 (licensing of HMOs), (iii) Part 3 (selective licensing of other houses) …”

[14]But Parts 2 and 3 are different regimes with somewhat different objectives, again as pointed out in Brown. Part 2 is concerned with the licensing of certain HMOs. S.55(1) – (3) provides as follows:

“(1) This Part provides for HMOs to be licensed by local housing authorities where– (a) they are HMOs to which this Part applies (see subsection (2)), and (b) they are required to be licensed under this Part (see section 61(1)). (2) This Part applies to the following HMOs in the case of each local housing authority– (a) any HMO in the authority's district which falls within any prescribed description of HMO, and (b) if an area is for the time being designated by the authority under section 56 as subject to additional licensing, any HMO in that area which falls within any description of HMO specified in the designation.

(a) ”

[15]The meaning of HMO is supplied by s.254 contained in Part 7 of the Act entitled “Supplementary and other provisions”. The relevant test for the purposes of this case is in s.254(4). Subsections (1) and (8) are also relevant. “(1) For the purposes of this Act a building or a part of a building is a “house in multiple occupation” if–(a) it meets the conditions in subsection (2) (“the standard test”);

(b) it meets the conditions in subsection (3) (“the self-contained flat test”);

(d) an HMO declaration is in force in respect of it under section 255; or

(e) it is a converted block of flats to which section 257 applies. … (4) A building or a part of a building meets the converted building test if– (a) it is a converted building; (b) it contains one or more units of living accommodation that do not consist of a self-contained flat or flats (whether or not it also contains any such flat or flats); (c) the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household (see section 258); (d) the living accommodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it (see section 259); (e) their occupation of the living accommodation constitutes the only use of that accommodation; and

(f) rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided in respect of at least one of those persons' occupation of the living accommodation. … (8) In this section– … “converted building” means a building or part of a building consisting of living accommodation in which one or more units of such accommodation have been created since the building or part was constructed; …”.

if–

[16]The current prescribed descriptions are to be found in article 4 of The Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Description) (England) Order 2018 (the Regulations). “An HMO is of a prescribed description for the purpose of section 55(2)(a) of the Act if it—(a) is occupied by five or more persons;

(b) is occupied by persons living in two or more separate households; and

(c) meets— (i) the standard test under section 254(2) of the Act; (ii) the self-contained flat test under section 254(3) of the Act but is not a purpose-built flat situated in a block comprising three or more self-contained flats; or (iii) the converted building test under section 254(4) of the Act.” It follows that where there are fewer than five persons occupying the HMO, it is not an HMO to which Part 2 of the Act applies (in the absence of additional licensing). That appears to have been the situation here.

[17]Turning to Part 3 of the Act entitled “Selective Licensing of Other Accommodation”, it begins with s.79. “Licensing of houses to which this Part applies(1) This Part provides for houses to be licensed by local housing authorities where– (a) they are houses to which this Part applies (see subsection (2)), and (b) they are required to be licensed under this Part (see section 85(1)).

(2) This Part applies to a house if– (a) it is in an area that is for the time being designated under section 80 as subject to selective licensing, and (b) the whole of it is occupied either– (i) under a single tenancy or licence that is not an exempt tenancy or licence under subsection (3) or (4), or (ii) under two or more tenancies or licences in respect of different dwellings contained in it, none of which is an exempt tenancy or licence under subsection (3) or (4).

(3) A tenancy or licence is an exempt tenancy or licence if — (a) it is granted by a non-profit registered provider of social housing, (b) it is granted by a profit-making registered provider of social housing in respect of social housing (within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), or (c) it is granted by a body which is registered as a social landlord under Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52).

(4) In addition, the appropriate national authority may by order provide for a tenancy or licence to be an exempt tenancy or licence– (a) if it falls within any description of tenancy or licence specified in the order; or (b) in any other circumstances so specified. …”

[18]The power to designate an area as subject to selective licensing is given by s.80. The requirement for a Part 3 house to be licensed is found in s.85(1). “(1) Every Part 3 house must be licensed under this Part unless–(a) it is an HMO to which Part 2 applies (see section 55(2)), or

(b) a temporary exemption notice is in force in relation to it under section 86, or

[19]The meanings of “house” and “dwelling” are supplied by s.99. “In this Part– ‘dwelling’ means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling; ‘house’ means a building or part of a building consisting of one or more dwellings; and references to a house include (where the context permits) any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to, or usually enjoyed with, it (or any part of it).”

Discussion and conclusion

[20]Given that statutory framework, it is my judgment that the fact the Building was an HMO under s.254(4) of the Act did not prevent each of the dwellings in the Building being treated as houses for the purposes of the selective licensing scheme in Part 3 of the Act. The FTT was therefore right to uphold the financial penalties in this case. My reasons for that conclusion are these.

[21]It has already been decided by this Tribunal that each of the dwellings in a building can be a house for the purposes of Part 3 of the Act notwithstanding that the building is also a house for those purposes. That was the decision of Judge Cooke in Northumberland Mews Ltd v Thanet District Council

[2022] UKUT 179 (LC)

. That case concerned a house converted into 22 flats. The local authority issued financial penalty notices for each of five flats in the house. The owning company appealed to the FTT on the ground that it only required a licence for the whole house, not for each of the individual flats. The FTT dismissed the appeal, and this Tribunal then upheld that decision of the FTT. Judge Cooke considered the definition of a house in s.99 of the Act and recorded at [10] that, “That would appear to mean, and has been taken by many local authorities to mean, that all of the following can be a Part 3 house which may be required to be licensed under section 85(1): a flat (part of a building consisting of one dwelling) part of a building consisting of several flats (being part of a building consisting of more than one dwelling). a building consisting of several flats (being a building consisting of more than one dwelling)”.

[22]She emphasised the flexibility that gave and used an earlier decision of this Tribunal as an illustration. “11. Accordingly it has been the practice of local authorities to grant licences under Part 3 both in relation to houses consisting of several flats owned and managed by a single landlord, and in relation to individual flats where more than one flat in the same building is owned and managed by the same landlord, and in relation to groups of two or more flats. That flexible practice was the background to the Tribunal’s decision in London Borough of Waltham Forest v Khan [2017] UKUT] 153 (LC), where Mr Khan owned six flats in a building and the local housing authority granted Part 3 licences in respect of each of four of the flats for five years, and further Part 3 licences for only one year in respect of two of the flats because they appeared to have been created without planning permission, in order for the planning issue to be resolved. The Tribunal (the Deputy President, Martin Rodger QC) found that the planning status of the property was a relevant consideration in the grant of licences. The practice of granting licences relating to more than one flat, and of granting more than one licence to the same landlord in relation to different parts of the building, was not called into question in that appeal, but it is in this one.” Part 3 both in relation to houses consisting of several flats owned and managed by same building is owned and managed by the same landlord, and in relation to groups of two or more flats. That flexible practice was the background to the Tribunal’s decision in London Borough of Waltham Forest v Khan [2017] UKUT] they appeared to have been created without planning permission, in order for the planning issue to be resolved. The Tribunal (the Deputy President, Martin Rodger the grant of licences. The practice of granting licences relating to more than one flat, and of granting more than one licence to the same landlord in relation to in this one.”

flat, and of granting more than one licence to the same landlord in relation to

[23]The argument for the appellant in Northumberland Mews was that s.91(1) of the Act meant, however, that a licence cannot be granted for premises which could, with others, form part of a house. S.91(1) says, “A licence may not relate to more than one Part 3 house.” Judge Cooke rejected that argument. She said at [43], “I take the view that that cannot be what it means, because the consequences that flow from that construction are unacceptable. If that is what it means then either the only possible subject for a licence is the smallest possible unit, as the FTT thought might be the case and as Mr Morris says is the result of the FTTs decision, or the licence must relate to the largest possible unit in relation to an individual, as Mr Morris argues. Either way the flexibility that the Act obviously intended is lost, and thousands of licences already granted are in fact invalid …”

[24]Leeds CC puts the decision in Northumberland Mews at the forefront of its submissions on this appeal. For his part, Mr Zaman does not contend that the decision in Northumberland Mews is wrong, still less that it was clearly wrong or there is some other powerful reason for the Tribunal now to depart from it (as I would expect to be required to justify a departure). His further statement of case on the appeal indicated that, “the Appellant does not challenge the correctness” of Northumberland Mews. Rather, his submission is that it is to be distinguished as the Tribunal was not there dealing with an HMO as defined by s.254(4).

[25]It is my judgment that Northumberland Mews cannot properly be distinguished on that basis.

[26]The issue on this appeal is a question of statutory interpretation and I can see no warrant in the statute for a conclusion different to that reached in Northumberland Mews where the wider house represented by the building is a particular sort of house, namely a house in multiple occupation within the meaning of s.254(4). Indeed, there are two features of the Act which seem to me to point strongly against that fact resulting in a different conclusion.

[27]One, there is a specific exclusion from Part 3 for those HMOs to which Part 2 applies – see s.85(1) quoted above. Parliament has therefore specifically addressed the issue of exclusion of HMOs from Part 3; s.85(1) setting out which HMOs are to be excluded, namely those “to which Part 2 applies”. It has chosen not, at least by any such clear language, to specify any change to the Part 3 regime on the basis a property is an HMO to which Part 2 does not apply.

[28]Two, Parts 2 and 3 of the Act represent different regimes. Part 2 is concerned with certain HMOs. Part 3 is concerned with other accommodation. That a building fits a description of an HMO is obviously significant for the question as to whether it is within Part 2 of the Act. But there is no obvious reason why it should prevent the residential units in a building being dealt with by a local authority in the way they could otherwise be under the different regime in Part 3 of the Act. The relevant definition for Part 3 is that of a house, not the list of tests for an HMO in s.254.

[29]It should be noted that this appeal does not raise any question as to the reach and operation of the exclusion in s.85(1), in particular whether it excludes any selective licensing of individual flats in a Part 2 HMO or just selective licensing of the building forming the Part 2 HMO.

[30]Mr Zaman’s submissions referred to article 5 of the Regulations. It is a transitional provision in these terms:

“A licence issued under Part 3 of the Act has effect as if issued under Part 2 of the Act in respect of an HMO that— (a) is licensed under Part 3 prior to 1st October 2018, and (b) is required to be licensed under Part 2 from that date.”

I do not consider that undermines the conclusion I have reached. It is concerned, like s.85(1), with HMOs which are required to be licensed under Part 2 of the Act. The Building is not such an HMO.

[31]His submissions also posed this question:

“Where is the statutory mechanism that permits a building accepted to be a single section 254(4) HMO to be artificially fragmented into multiple Part 3 ‘houses’ for licensing and penalty multiplication?”

. But the answer to that question is to be found in Northumberland Mews. Both a building and the flats in it can be Part 3 houses. Given that is the law, the true question is whether the statute requires a different outcome where a building is an HMO within s.254(4). For the reasons I have given, I have concluded it does not require a different outcome.

[32]It follows from my answer to the question raised by this appeal that the appeal is dismissed. His Honour Judge Johns KC 7 May 2026 Right of appeal Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.