Couple plus a sibling. HMO?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Couple plus a sibling. HMO?

    Is a couple plus a sibling related to one of the couple all living together in a two bedroom property considered to be living as one or two households?
    Assume I know nothing.

    #2
    Relatives are all one household.
    I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

    I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

    Comment


      #3
      So what if the single sibling moved in a partner? Four sharers, not an HMO?
      (3)For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) a person is a member of the same family as another person if—

      (a)those persons are married to [F1, or civil partners of, each other or live together as if they were a married couple or civil partners];

      (b)one of them is a relative of the other; or

      (c)one of them is, or is a relative of, one member of a couple and the other is a relative of the other member of the couple.

      I am struggling to understand (c)!
      Assume I know nothing.

      Comment


        #4
        Nobody ever seems to understand (c)!

        Roughly, it means that in-laws are allowed! (If you have a couple, then anyone who is related to either of them is fine)

        A second couple does, I think, create an HMO - as there are two people who are not connected (the partners of the two relatives). Some quite knowledgeable people seem to think that any 'chain' of partners / relatives is ok, but I don't know why they think that.

        Comment


          #5
          (5)Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may, in particular, secure that a group of persons are to be regarded as forming a single household only where (as the regulations may require) each member of the group has a prescribed relationship, or at least one of a number of prescribed relationships, to any one or more of the others.

          Does this mean that as long as there is a chain of connections such as A is related to B, B is related to C and C is related to D then even if there are no other connections between parties it is one family?
          Assume I know nothing.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Ted.E.Bear View Post
            Nobody ever seems to understand (c)!

            Roughly, it means that in-laws are allowed! (If you have a couple, then anyone who is related to either of them is fine)

            A second couple does, I think, create an HMO - as there are two people who are not connected (the partners of the two relatives). Some quite knowledgeable people seem to think that any 'chain' of partners / relatives is ok, but I don't know why they think that.
            Cheers - I cross posted with you! I think they may be right about chains .
            Assume I know nothing.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Hooper View Post
              (5)Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may, in particular, secure that a group of persons are to be regarded as forming a single household only where (as the regulations may require) each member of the group has a prescribed relationship, or at least one of a number of prescribed relationships, to any one or more of the others.


              Does this mean that as long as there is a chain of connections such as A is related to B, B is related to C and C is related to D then even if there are no other connections between parties it is one family?
              That means that the national authorites can create regulations which allow that, but I don't believe any have (I couldn't find any - the national regulations in force do allow for things like au pairs and servants).

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Hooper View Post

                Cheers - I cross posted with you! I think they may be right about chains .
                The government guidance also suggests that chains are ok - but, again, I can find nothing in the actual legislation which supports that view. If such chains were allowed, then I think 3(c) would be entrely redundant.
                (in practice, nobody will care anyway).

                Comment


                  #9
                  Are there any rules related to a single parent living with 4 children (2 boys, 2 girls) - all children probably teenagers- in a 2-bed flat.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Ted.E.Bear View Post

                    (in practice, nobody will care anyway).
                    Until councils realise there is a good income stream from fines. Or insurance companies can claim you are in breach of policy conditions.

                    Assume I know nothing.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by vmart View Post
                      Are there any rules related to a single parent living with 4 children (2 boys, 2 girls) - all children probably teenagers- in a 2-bed flat.
                      Rules related to overcrowding. Will depends on the size of the rooms.
                      I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

                      I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Thank you.

                        Comment

                        Latest Activity

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X