2 weeks ago | 34 comments
Hello, I’ve recently had an existing HMO licence varied by Coventry City Council to include a condition requiring the landlord or manager to be the account holder for gas, electricity, water and council tax.
There is an exception where the property is let to a cohesive group of full-time students on a joint tenancy, but apparently not where the same property is let to a group of working adults on an identical joint tenancy.
I find this distinction difficult to understand.
My properties are let on joint tenancies, not individual room agreements. The tenants have traditionally been responsible for arranging and paying their own utilities, which seems perfectly reasonable when they have joint and several liability under the tenancy.
My main concern is the financial exposure this creates. If the landlord is required to hold the accounts, they become responsible to the suppliers for whatever the occupants consume. Even if the tenancy provides for reimbursement, that doesn’t remove the liability if tenants refuse or fail to pay. It also removes much of the incentive for tenants to manage their consumption.
The licence was originally granted in 2024 without this condition, and I have yet to see a convincing explanation of why it is now necessary.
I appreciate that councils have powers under section 67 of the Housing Act 2004 to impose HMO licence conditions, but I do wonder whether this goes further than is reasonably necessary. Ensuring that essential services remain available is one thing; requiring the landlord to take contractual responsibility for the occupants’ utility consumption is quite another.
I’m considering challenging the condition at the First-tier Tribunal.
Has anyone else in Coventry received this condition or challenged it? I’d also be interested to know whether other councils are imposing similar requirements, particularly on HMOs let under joint tenancies.
Any experiences or relevant Tribunal decisions would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Neil
11 comments on this article
A different perspective could help you spot an issue, avoid a mistake or find a better way forward. Read the comments and add your own views if you wish.
Previous Article
Government set to miss 1.5 million homes target by 500,000Next Article
What to do in case of disruption to an HMO?
2 weeks ago | 34 comments
2 weeks ago | 3 comments
2 weeks ago | 5 comments
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 213
1:53 PM, 24th October 2026, About 5 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Simon F at 24/10/2026 – 13:38
I should add: the fact that they are using the condition to reinforce HMO Management Regs makes ground 4 in my Fletcher v Portsmouth [2026] UKUT 234 case relevant also. And do note if you simply Google “Fletcher v Portsmouth” a different UT case of mine from 2025 is more prominent in results, so watch out for that.