Is my converted property exempt from HMO licensing?

If it was converted in 1988 ot is not going to have complied with 1991 building regs which were not published until 3+ years later
Therefore it is section 257 HMO if 2 or more out of the 3 units are rented rather than owner occupied
S257 is a complicated area of the housing Act 2004 that councils are only just starting to understand (as a money making machine) 11 years after the law was introduced
If your local authority says they need licensing they are probably correct. If you need assistance please get in touch with us at Landlord Licensing & Defence

S257 varies so much. In London Camden Council say it only applies IF 50% are rented out. Islington Council says the whole building has to be rented and under one CONTROL ie. Single freeholder so check the details of you local council’s conditions.
Westminster Council abandoned applying S257 it as was too complicated to implement as owner occupier / rented properties changed hands regularly so S257 might apply one year but not the next!!!

Its a s257 HMO.

Hi.
Thanks for the replies. We have obtained a copy of the Building Regs approval from 1988.
Surely now it won’t be considered as a HMO? Doesn’t seem right. It was lawfully converted into 3 flats before 1991.
K

As has already been said, if it was converted in 1988, then its unlikely to meet the requirements of the 1992 building regulations, meaning that if at least 50% of the flats are let, it will be a s257 HMO. However, the requirements should not be onerous as they only apply to the common parts of the building, such as an entrance lobby, and not the individual flats. The person responsible for the building, usually the freeholder, needs a fire risk assessment on the common parts and then to follow the recommendations. They are also responsible for the licensing.

Reply to the comment left by Kev D at 10:32

It reads as though you may be conflating the need for compliance with ’91 building regulations not in force at the time of conversion, which will be lawful under the Building Act ’84; and the purpose and definition of a S257 made under The Housing Act 2004.
Setting aside the <2/3 owner occupier rule part of the definition, the main purpose of the latter was to capture properties converted before the '91 Regs applied, as those regulations imposed improvements to basic fire safety, energy efficiency and sound attenuation, amongst other things at that time, to conversions before and after.
Part of the definition of the S257 HMO requires that the conversion did not comply and still does not comply with the '91 Regs. Which indicates that the inspector found some evidence of non compliance. Unless there was no such visit, in which case the council would not have the evidence to declare the property as a S257 HMO block, nor insist on the requirement to licence.
Many local councils pick up S257 under their additional HMO licensing schemes but they're difficult to get evidence on as trying to find a copy of the '91 building Regs is a dark art. There are a few clear indicators of non compliance with these Regs in particular related to fire safety which are clear. This can come down to lack of adequate fire separation, layout creating an unsafe means of escape from fire amongst other things.
Best to get competent advice as above. You may under some circumstances request from the local authority a temporary exemption notice from licensing which might allow you time (3 months) to set matters in order and delay the requirement to make application for a HMO licence if you intend to make improvements or disposal of an interest in the block. They will expect some supporting action/evidence however, i.e. fire safety improvements or whatever they assessed as non compliant.
If you can bring the block into compliance with the the '91 Regulations then it may not longer meet the definition for a S257 block.
I wish you the best of luck.