Should I report DS's landlord to the council?

[Cherryma]

DS lives in Brighton which has some of the strictest housing regulations in the country. Currently he's a lodger with a live-in landlord (I know that lodgers have fewer rights than tenants). There are 2 other lodgers in the property. He's moving out next week (staying in Brighton).

In Brighton, you are allowed to have 2 lodgers without a licence, any more than that and it's classed as a house of multiple occupation if the lodgers aren't related to each other, which requires a licence and planning permission (I know the landlord has neither of these). HMOs have certain regulations which I know are not being followed.

HMO residents should be allowed to individually control the heating in their bedrooms which they can't do. There should be internal thumb turn locks on the front and back doors to escape the property without using a key, in the event of fire. There are just normal locks which require keys. There is no fire blanket in the kitchen when there should be. A gas safety inspection should be carried out every year and a copy of the certificate given to the residents. They have never had this.

He live in area in Brighton with lots of HMOs, I have read online that licences have been refused in his area as local residents and the council have agreed there are too many. The landlord probably hasn't applied for one as they know it would be rejected. The landlord could be fined £20,000 by the council, additionally paying back the lodgers 12 months' rent and have the property being banned from running as an HMO indefinitely. Should I report them? I live in Brighton too so it would be easy to help him with the report.

No, I'm not missing the point at all, @HanginWithMyGnomies. This thread is yet another example of the really peculiar attitude on MN to people accessing their lawful entitlement to compensation for unlawful behaviour or negligence leading to damage, as if it were somehow immoral.

Manifestly OP didn't plan this, not least because there is no way of knowing before you take a tenancy whether a landlord has complied with the HMO regulations. We don't know at what point in the tenancy her son became aware of the issue, or what discussions she had with him about moving or staying there etc. She started this thread asking whether to report, so even at that stage she was uncertain. Subsequently she confirmed that, if her son did report, she would want him to be repaid his rent. Given that that is exactly what the law allows and indeed specifically encourages by this legislation, all this pile-on is really unjustified. The issue wouldn't arise if the landlord had complied with the law, and there is nothing whatsoever that indicates that OP would rather have her son live in a legally compliant property than a non-compliant one, even with the possibility of a rent repayment. Frankly, I strongly doubt that there is one parent on here who would in reality have told their child not to access this right.

@Equanimitas it states somewhere in this thread that the son was the third person to move in and that the op knew this was an illegal HMO on that basis. Knew it wasn’t allowed under the housing legislation of Brighton, but attempts to mitigate that her son couldn’t afford to rent anywhere else (despite others pointing out that there is an array of student accommodation in the area and that mother and son could rent together cheaper).

However, after her son living there for a year. She now wants to reap the rewards of reporting it. No, report it in the first place. When you knew it was illegal and don’t try to milk a situation for all it’s worth!

the Evil Bastard Landlord narrative again
we are all exploited by private landlords, they exist as parasites upon society as a whole
public money is channeled into their pockets funding their retirements when it should be invested into social housing for the benefit of society as a whole so that those not wealthy enough to buy can have secure and affordable homes
a secure and affordable home is a basic human right, not a luxury for the few

Rhino - the UK has a 65% home ownership rate (so not exactly the 'few' you refer to) and this is higher than the U.S., Japan, Germany, Switzerland etc.

Plenty of people are happy renting to allow for geographical mobility/ lifestage flexibility etc and there are many, many good landlords out there who abide by the law and have good relationships with their tenants (who often stay for many years).

The rest is your opinion and your conjecture, which you're entitled to, but of course doesn't make it necessarily correct.

I think good landlords provide a valuable service, which good tenants appreciate and are happy to pay for. Meanwhile, bad tenants who are chancers like the OP are the bane of everyone's life.

@HanginWithMyGnomies, it doesn't say that anywhere in the thread. The closest it comes is OP's statement that "There have always been 3 lodgers in the house including him when he moved in" - which isn't a statement that her son knew it was illegal.

Oh well, fortunately we can all see that multiple multiple people on this thread think Op is an opportunistic chancer and there are just one or 2 lone voices on here insisting Op's suggestion is appropriate behaviour in the circumstances.

There are always the LL haters - those who would like all LLs to have to return all of the rent they have received.

Fortunately most people agree that LLs should stick to their obligations and not get away without doing so, but also can see there is a right way to deal with this. As Shelter suggests, the tenant themselves (not their mother who sees a chance for a quick buck but who hasn't personally been affected) should raise an issue with the LL themselves first. They should then tell the authorities if nothing is done. It is clear that these issues should be raised as soon as possible. To not do so, with the intention of having accommodation for longer (which you know is illegal) so you can try to extract maximum rent return and have lived for free is immoral.

This is a legal issue in terms of LL obligations. The way it is dealt with by Op is a moral issue. Op feels no moral behaviour is owed to a LL - so it is fine to deliberately choose to delay reporting the problem to gain maximum personal gain. The law might allow her to do so and she might feel happy to exploit the circumstances to her own gain and perhaps even feel justified in doing so. BUT MNers don't condone this. They don't condone the LL but they don't condone the Op either and are disgusted by her suggestions.
The one or 2 line voices can keep arguing she is right but fail to see the issue of choice about timing and motivation as issues, which most MNers clearly see. We look at things both legally and morally. We want BOTH legality and morality to be followed and the lack of the latter ...the selfish, opportunistic behaviour of the Op repels people.

Fortunately, despite what Op might read in the Press, councils are wise to opportunists. Reporting the LL is most likely to result in action against the LL (which people on here would be glad about) but not to lead to the DS (or possibly his mother) receiving a rental refund as the motivation and timing in this case as so blindingly obviously selfishly motivated and the council will know this.

Disappointing that some people want to behave like this or condone it. For those who see all LLs as the scum of the earth, behaviour like the OP's is what gives many tenants a bad name. Fortunately again, most wouldn't do what Op is contemplating, but unluckily for them, LLs might look with suspicion at them too because of the actions of the despicable few. When people behave badly - and that's illegally but also immorally, everyone loses out - LLs put up rents to cover their losses from tenants who don't pay rent or who do damage or who find ways to get their rent back. In the end, the tenant loses out as rents are higher. Op is shooting herself in the foot in tris of the wider rental market....but she won't be concerned about that, just a quick immediate opportunistic buck, plus perhaps some satisfaction at getting one over (rent return - not the issue of being held up for breaking the rules) on a LL she has had nothing to do with. But some people are like that aren't they are always looking to harm others and gain themselves and feel justified and entitled through some odd way of reasoning.

Oh well, fortunately we can all see that multiple multiple people on this thread think Op is an opportunistic chancer and there are just one or 2 lone voices on here insisting Op's suggestion is appropriate behaviour in the circumstances.

I found at least ten "lone voices" without trying, and with a thread with only 207 messages on (many from repeat posters) it's a bit difficult to characterise those with a different opinion as "multiple multiple posters."

Fortunately, despite what Op might read in the Press, councils are wise to opportunists.

Yet someone who actually works in housing has said on this thread that they wouldn't regard someone in OP's son's position as doing anything wrong in using the legislation in the way it's intended to be used.

Some of the posts on here are beginning to look really quite spiteful.

I think the OP is the one coming across as most spiteful in all of this!

Now I'm really hoping that the LL:

• has a family member in one of the other rooms as a (non-paying) lodger making it a non-HMO
• has a valid Gas Safety certificate in the kitchen drawer
• is operating legally under a previous set of rules (pre-2012?) due to age/ layout of house or something.