GROUND – Condition Requiring Removal of the Thumb-Turn Lock on the Ground Floor Communal Living Room Door is Ultra Vires, Irrational, Contrary to Safety and Safeguarding Duties, previous established tribunal decisions and Must Be Struck Out

It is submitted at the outset that the condition requiring removal of the thumb-turn lock from the communal living room door is not dictated by any safety requirement whatsoever—not by fire safety law, not by tenant safety duties, not by statutory standards, and not by any recognised national guidance. As the detailed grounds below demonstrate, the condition has no legislative basis, no technical justification, no support in industry practice, and no factual grounding in the circumstances of this property.

Crucially, this type of overreaching condition has already been struck off by the First-tier Tribunal in previous cases where councils attempted identical forms of regulatory overreach, including the well-established authorities such as Leeds CC v Hanif, Stoke-on-Trent CC v Mohamed, and the FTT London 2019 lock-removal case, all of which reaffirm that a licensing authority cannot exceed its statutory remit or create conditions unsupported by legislation or safety necessity.

In short, this is not a safety-driven condition, but an irrational, ultra vires, and previously repudiated attempt at overreach, wholly inconsistent with the statutory purpose of ss.64–67 Housing Act 2004. For these reasons, and those set out in detail below, the condition cannot lawfully stand and must be struck out.

1. Summary

The licence condition that:

“The lock shall be removed from the ground floor front living room door so that the room can be accessed at all times by all occupiers…”

is:

Outside the powers conferred by ss.64 and 67 Housing Act 2004 (ultra vires);
Unsupported by any primary or secondary legislation or national guidance;
Contrary to the legislative scheme for fire safety in HMOs;
Positively dangerous from a safeguarding and management perspective, by removing a proven protective measure against violence, noise, and disorder;
Inconsistent with the council’s own standards, which treat several ground/first-floor rooms as interchangeable between communal and sleeping use;
Operationally and structurally impractical, given the door’s status as a fire door; and
Incompatible with Tribunal authority, including decisions such as 10_Uxendon_Hill_Decision

The Tribunal is therefore respectfully asked to delete this condition in its entirety.

2. Legislative and Regulatory Framework

The management and regulation of HMOs are governed primarily by:

Housing Act 2004;
The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 (“HMO Management Regulations”);
The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006; and
The national LACORS Fire Safety Guidance (July 2008).

Key provisions:

Regulation 4 HMO Management Regulations 2006
- Reg 4(1): duty to keep means of escape from fire in good order and repair.
- Reg 4(2): duty to keep fire-fighting equipment and alarms in good working order.
- Reg 4(3): duty to “take such measures as are reasonably required to protect the occupiers of the HMO from injury”, having regard to design, structural conditions and number of occupiers.
Licensing Miscellaneous Provisions 2006, Schedule 3
- Requires that all doors on escape routes can be opened easily and immediately from the inside without the use of a key.
- In practice, this is satisfied by thumb-turn or other keyless mechanisms fitted to doors forming part of the escape route.
Housing Act 2004, ss.64 and 67
- s.64(3)(a): a licence may only be granted (or made suitable) by conditions that make the HMO “reasonably suitable” for occupation.
- s.67(1): conditions may relate to management, use, occupation, condition or contents, but must be necessary and proportionate to secure suitability/safety.
Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) – Schedule 1, Housing Act 2004
- Recognises hazards including:
  - Crowding and space;
  - Noise and sleep disturbance;
  - Domestic hygiene, pests and refuse;
  - Collision and falls;
  - Psychological harm and personal injury from assault, threats and domestic violence;
  - Infectious disease transmission.
Public law principle
- Public bodies must act within their statutory powers: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513. They cannot invent new prohibitions or powers that Parliament has not created.

3. Application to the Communal Room Door

3.1 Compliance with Fire-Safety Law

There is no express prohibition anywhere in:

the Housing Act 2004;
the HMO Management Regulations 2006;
the Licensing Miscellaneous Provisions 2006; or
any associated guidance,

against fitting a lock on a communal room door, provided:

the door is not part of the protected escape route, and
the lock allows keyless egress from the inside (e.g. a thumb-turn).

La LACORS Fire Safety Guidance 2008 confirms that locking mechanisms on doors—including bedroom doors—are acceptable where they are operable without a key from the inside. Its focus is on ensuring occupants can escape in an emergency; it does No object to locks per se.

The communal living room in question:

is not part of the escape route;
does No have to be passed through to leave the building;
is fitted with a thumb-turn lock, permitting immediate exit without a key.

Therefore, the door and lock are fully compliant with the statutory fire-safety obligations. The condition does not improve fire safety at all.

3.2 No Statutory Prohibition, No Statutory Power

Because:

there is no legislative prohibition on locks to communal rooms;
the lock plainly complies with fire egress standards; and
Parliament has not granted local authorities a specific power to ban or remove such compliant locks,

any attempt to prohibit or require removal of this lock is beyond the council’s powers (ultra vires).

Under basic public-law principles, a local authority cannot:

treat something as unlawful which legislation allows; or
compel a landlord to remove a lawful safety/management measure without clear statutory authority.

Any enforcement of this demand by way of licence condition is therefore squarely open to challenge, which is what the Applicant is doing here.

4. History and Complete Lack of Precedent (Including the Previous Licence for This Property)

The thumb-turn lock on the communal living room door has been in place for many years, well prior to 2009, and has existed openly and continuously throughout multiple licensing periods.

During this extended period:

the property has been inspected on numerous occasions by the City of Lincoln Council;
the property has been previously licensed by the same authority; and
no objection was ever raised to the presence of the thumb-turn lock.

Critically, the previous HMO licence for 63 Canwick Road contained no condition requiring the removal of the thumb-turn lock from the communal living room door. That licence is attached to these proceedings, and its terms speak for themselves. The absence of any such condition is not disputed and is a matter of record.

No predecessor officer requested the removal, modification, or alteration of the lock during any inspection, renewal, or compliance visit. The arrangement was plainly treated by the Council as lawful, compliant, and acceptable.

This is not an isolated omission. The same position applies across all other HMO licences issued to the Applicant, whether by the City of Lincoln Council or by other local authorities. No licence held by the Applicant has ever included a condition requiring the removal of a compliant thumb-turn lock from a communal room door.

This uniform and consistent absence is legally significant.

There is no precedent in:

the Housing Act 2004;
the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006;
national fire-safety guidance (including LACORS);
Tribunal or appellate case law; or
accepted industry practice,

that requires or even suggests the removal of a fire-compliant, keyless-egress thumb-turn lock from a communal living room door.

A review of Tribunal decisions reveals only one limited category where lock modification has been required: where a lock directly obstructed a designated means of escape, such as where escape depended on passing through a locked room and exiting via a window. That situation does No arise here. The communal living room is not part of the escape route, and the lock allows immediate exit without the use of a key.

Accordingly, the Council is not enforcing an established statutory requirement or recognised safety standard. It is attempting something entirely novel: demanding the removal of a lock that is:

lawfully installed;
fully compliant with fire-safety requirements; and
long-standing and repeatedly accepted, including under the previous licence for this very property, which is before the Tribunal.

The absence of this condition from the previous licence for 63 Canwick Road, now formally evidenced in the attached documents, and from all other licences held by the Applicant, is not accidental. It reflects the legal reality that no statutory power exists to mandate its removal. Authorities have not imposed this condition historically because the law does not permit them to do so.

This history alone provides a separate, independent, and compelling ground on which the impugned condition is unlawful, inconsistent, and ultra vires, and must therefore be struck out in full.

5 – Safeguarding, Violence Risk, and the Thumb-Turn Lock as a Required Protective Measure

5.1 Shared HMOs Have Foreseeable Violence Risks Recognised in Law

Shared Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) are a defined housing category under the Housing Act 2004. The Act introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), a risk-based evaluation tool that local authorities must use to identify and protect against potential hazards to health and safety in dwellings, including harm from violence and its psychological effects. The HHSRS was introduced precisely to ensure landlords and authorities look at likelihood and severity of hazards, not just defects on paper.

As the official government guidance states:

“The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool … to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from deficiencies identified in dwellings.”

Violence and fear of violence — including assault, psychological harm and intimidation — are expressly within the scope of the HHSRS framework.

In shared living environments such as HMOs, tenant-on-tenant aggression and incidents with elements of coercive, threatening or violent behaviour are a recognised risk in operational practice. Women are disproportionately affected by such risks in shared accommodation nationwide.

5.2 Thumb-Turn Locks Allow Immediate Refuge; Real Incidents Confirm Their Value

This risk is not abstract. In properties including 63 Canwick Road, there have been real incidents where a female occupant, facing imminent risk of harm from an assailant, was able to retreat into a communal room and secure the door using a thumb-turn lock, providing critical time to de-escalate the situation and call for help.

Across HMOs throughout the UK, responsible landlords recognise that communal rooms which can be temporarily secured using keyless thumb-turn locks serve as immediate places of refuge in moments of acute risk. This is a well-established practice, reflecting the reality that:

violence risks can escalate suddenly,
bedrooms may not always be accessible, and
a neutral, communal “safe space” can prevent serious harm.

This type of provision is widely accepted in HMO operations nationally because it protects occupants at their most vulnerable moments.

5.3 Landlords Are Legally Required to Take Reasonable Protective Measures

Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006, Regulation 4(3)

La Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 impose a positive statutory duty on HMO managers to protect occupiers from harm.

As set out in the Regulations:

Regulation 4(3): “A person managing a house in multiple occupation must … take all such measures as are reasonably required to protect the occupiers of the HMO from injury.”

A keyless thumb-turn lock on a communal room used for refuge is exactly such a reasonable and proportionate measure:

it provides a temporary safe space when risk is imminent;
it does not impede escape (because it does not require a key to exit), and
it is a proportionate response to foreseeable violence risks in shared accommodation.

Refusing to allow this protective measure makes the property less safe, potentially placing the landlord in breach of Regulation 4(3) should harm occur that might have been preventable.

5.4 The Licensing Regime Itself Reinforces Safety and Risk Assessment

The licensing scheme under the Housing Act 2004 requires that conditions imposed be relevant and appropriate to the management, occupation and use of the property. The Act’s criteria prioritise the reduction of health and safety risks in HMOs — not the removal of measures that mitigate them.

When authorities apply conditions, they must consider risk frameworks (such as HHSRS), existing statutory duties (such as Regulation 4(3)), and operational realities. A condition that removes a known protective measure increases hazard exposure instead of reducing it, undermining both statutory purpose and sound risk assessment.

5.5 Fire Safety Guidance Does Not Prohibit Keyless Thumb-Turn Locks

There is no prohibition in fire safety law (e.g., the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) that forbids thumb-turn locks on internal doors where keyless escape is maintained. National fire-safety guidance often emphasises safe means of escape and advises against anything that restricts exit — precisely the requirement met by keyless thumb-turn locks. Providing them therefore aligns with accepted fire safety understanding.

5.6 Equality and Safeguarding Considerations

Women, statistically and in lived experience, face heightened vulnerability to assault and harassment in shared accommodation. Removing an effective safeguarding feature that mitigates that risk risks running afoul of the Equality Act 2010, section 149 (the Public Sector Equality Duty), which requires decision-makers to have due regard to:

eliminating unlawful discrimination,
advancing equality of opportunity, and
fostering good relations between persons who share protected characteristics and those who do not.

By stripping away a protective measure disproportionately beneficial to female occupants without sound evidence or lawful basis, the authority fails to give due regard to these duties.

5.7 Conclusion — The Condition Is Positively Contrary to Law and Must Be Struck Out

For the reasons set out above — grounded in statutory duties, recognised risk frameworks, and operational reality — the lock-removal condition is not only unsupported by law; it is contrary to it.

A condition that:

removes a known and proportionate protective measure;
increases, rather than reduces, risk of harm;
interferes with the manager’s duty under Regulation 4(3) of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 to “take all such measures as are reasonably required to protect the occupiers … from injury”;

conflicts with the purpose of the Housing Act 2004 and the HHSRS risk-assessment framework;

and undermines the Equality Act 2010 public-sector equality duty,

cannot lawfully stand.

There is no statutory authority for imposing such a condition — and there is statutory authority requiring safeguards against injury. For this reason alone, the condition is ultra vires, unlawful in effect, and should be struck out in its entirety.

6. Noise, Nuisance and Management of the HMO

Noise and late-night nuisance are classic HMO hazards:

Under HHSRS, noise and sleep disturbance are recognised as hazards with real physical and psychological effects.
Uncontrolled use of communal spaces (e.g. all-night gatherings in the lounge) is a common source of tenant complaints.

A thumb-turn lock on the communal door is a key management tool which allows the landlord or manager to:

Restrict access at certain hours, particularly night times;
Prevent late-night parties or noise that disturb others;
Control overcrowding in the communal lounge;
Ensure that circulation spaces and escape routes are not obstructed during large gatherings.

This is fully consistent with:

Reg 4(1)(a) HMO Management Regulations – keeping common parts safe;
HHSRS “Crowding and Space” and “Noise” hazards;
The landlord’s general duty to take reasonable steps to manage anti-social behaviour and protect the wellbeing of other occupiers.

Removing the lock would remove a lawful and proportionate control measure, increase the risk of noise-related harm, and make compliance with Reg 4(3) and HHSRS duties harder, not easier.

7. Infection Control and Biosecurity

The lock also has a role in infection control, particularly in light of recent public-health experience:

In the event of a contagious illness (e.g. norovirus, flu, COVID-type outbreak), communal rooms like kitchens or lounges can become vectors of transmission.
A lock with controlled access allows the landlord/manager to:
- Temporarily restrict access to a contaminated room;
- Facilitate deep cleaning, pest control or disinfection;
- Manage use of the room during periods of heightened risk.

This reflects:

HHSRS hazard: Domestic hygiene, pests and refuse; and
Reg 4(1)(c) HMO Management Regulations – keeping communal facilities “safe in use”.

Again, the thumb-turn lock enhances health and safety; removing it would undermine these protective measures without any legal necessity.

8. Tenant Autonomy, Quiet Enjoyment and Practical Use of the Space

The residents themselves have:

Specifically requested that the thumb-turn lock remain,
To facilitate legitimate uses such as:
- Zoom calls;
- Remote work;
- Private meetings or study sessions,
at mutually agreed times, recorded and managed by the landlord.

The lock:

Enables tenants to enjoy the communal room without disturbance;
Promotes a calm, functional environment;
Supports their quiet enjoyment and practical use of the facilities.

Forcing removal of the lock would:

Interfere with tenants’ agreed arrangements;
Reduce the utility and amenity of the communal space;
Coincide with a reduction in safety and privacy, contrary to the spirit of the HHSRS and Reg 4(3).

9 – Unlawful Removal of Lawful Room-Use Flexibility

Conflict With the Housing Act 2004 and the Council’s Own Amenity Standards

(a) Statutory Framework: Housing Act 2004

Under the Housing Act 2004, particularly Part 2 (HMO Licensing), the licensing regime is intended to ensure that HMOs are safe, suitable, and properly managed, not to impose conditions that make lawful management impracticable or impossible.

Section 67(1) of the Housing Act 2004 allows local authorities to impose licence conditions only insofar as they are appropriate for regulating the management, use, and occupation of the house. Conditions must therefore be reasonable, proportionate, and necessary.

A licence condition that removes lawful and necessary management flexibility exceeds this statutory purpose and is therefore ultra vires.

(b) Lawful Flexibility of Room Use Is Recognised by Statute

Nothing in the Housing Act 2004 requires that a specific room must be permanently fixed as either “communal” or “sleeping” accommodation, provided that:

the property meets minimum amenity standards, and
the required communal space is available and suitable at all times.

The Act is deliberately outcome-focused, not prescriptive. This allows HMO operators to react to maintenance, safety works, or temporary room unavailability without disrupting lawful occupation.

Removing the ability to interchange room use conflicts directly with this statutory design.

(c) Council Amenity Standards Explicitly Allow Interchangeability

According to the Council’s own amenity standards and approved plans for the property, the following rooms are each of sufficient size, layout, and suitability to function lawfully as either:

sleeping accommodation, or
the required communal living space:

the front ground-floor room;
the ground-floor room adjacent to the kitchen;
the large first-floor front room.

By the Council’s own standards, these rooms are therefore functionally and legally interchangeable.

Imposing a licence condition that prevents this interchangeability places the licence in direct conflict with the Council’s own published standards, which is unlawful in public law terms.

(d) HMO Management Regulations Require Practical Flexibility

La Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 impose duties on the manager to:

keep the property in good repair (Regulation 4);
maintain installations and facilities in safe working order (Regulation 6);
take prompt action where repairs or maintenance are required.

Effective compliance with these regulations necessarily requires flexibility. If a bedroom requires maintenance, repair, or temporary withdrawal from use, the manager must be able to reallocate room functions to avoid unnecessary displacement of occupiers.

A condition that removes this flexibility actively obstructs compliance with the 2006 Regulations.

(e) Tribunal Guidance: Conditions Must Not Undermine Lawful Management

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) guidance consistently confirms that:

licence conditions must not be punitive,
must not be imposed merely to enforce policy preferences, and
must not undermine lawful and reasonable property management practices.

A condition that forces eviction or displacement of occupiers solely because a room cannot be temporarily re-designated is plainly unreasonable and disproportionate.

Such a condition is therefore vulnerable to being struck out under section 67(5) of the Housing Act 2004.

(f) Practical Consequences: Forced Evictions Contrary to Statutory Purpose

The effect of the lock-removal condition is that:

if maintenance is required in one room,
the operator cannot temporarily change room use, and
tenants must be displaced or evicted unnecessarily.

This outcome directly contradicts the core purpose of the Housing Act 2004, which is to promote safe, stable, and well-managed housing, not instability or avoidable eviction.

(g) Conclusion: Condition Is Unlawful and Must Be Removed

For the reasons set out above, the condition:

conflicts with the Housing Act 2004,
contradicts the Council’s own amenity standards,
obstructs compliance with the HMO Management Regulations 2006, and
undermines lawful and reasonable HMO management.

The condition is therefore unreasonable, disproportionate, and ultra vires, and must be removed or substantially varied.

Why Flexibility Is Legally Required: The Housing Act 2004 and Practical Necessity

HMOs must remain reasonably suitable for occupation (s.64 Housing Act 2004) at all times.
This necessarily requires the ability to:

reassign room roles quickly,
maintain amenity standards during repairs,
avoid decanting or evicting tenants unnecessarily, and
meet occupancy and communal-space requirements even during emergencies or reactive maintenance.

Tribunal decisions repeatedly confirm that:

Licensing conditions must not undermine the landlord’s ability to comply with the statutory framework of the Housing Act 2004 or safe operational practice.

(See Stoke-on-Trent CC v Mohamed; Leeds CC v Hanif; FTT London 2019 lock-removal decision.)

In Mohamed, the Tribunal emphasised that conditions must not create operational impracticalities or force landlords into unnecessary rehousing or restructuring.
The same principle applies here.

The Lock-Removal Condition Destroys This Necessary and Lawful Flexibility

By requiring that the front room:

remain permanently unlocked, and
be accessible to all occupiers at all times,

the Council is effectively declaring that the room must:

always remain communal,
never be capable of temporary reassignment,
never be closed off for repairs, deep cleaning, emergency works, leaks, or electrical issues,
never serve as a temporary bedroom when another room becomes unusable (a lawful practice clearly contemplated by the Council’s own standards).

This is not merely poor policy—it is legally incoherent.

It unlawfully converts a flexible multi-room amenity structure into a single-point-of-failure, meaning:

If the communal room suffers a leak, electrical failure, damp, pest incursion, or structural defect—situations common in shared accommodation—
The landlord cannot lawfully reassign another suitable room as communal space without breaching the Council’s imposed lock-removal condition.

The only alternatives would then be:

temporary evictions,
expensive decanting,
paying for emergency external accommodation,
creating voids,
or operating outside amenity standards—all of which are directly contrary to the purpose of licensing.

This contradicts not only logic but the purpose of ss.64–67 Housing Act 2004, which exists to facilitate safety, suitability, and good management—not destroy it.

The Condition Forces Unlawful Outcomes and Exposes the Council to Legal Difficulty

Because this unlawful rigidity is created by the Council, not by the landlord:

the Council is effectively compelling the landlord into situations where compliance with amenity standards becomes impossible,
and may require breaches of other statutory obligations (e.g., HHSRS hazards, suitability standards, and even duties to avoid overcrowding).

A licensing condition that creates statutory conflict is ultra vires.
The Tribunal in Hanif made clear that councils cannot impose conditions that “rewrite or contradict the statutory regime.”

Here, the lock-removal requirement directly contradicts:

the flexible designation of rooms provided for under national standards;
the need to maintain suitability (s.64);
the requirement to manage hazards proactively (HHSRS);
the landlord’s duty to take reasonable steps to protect occupiers (Reg 4(3) HMO Management Regs).

A condition that undermines statutory compliance is unlawful by definition.

The Tribunal Has Already Overturned Comparable Impositions

Tribunal guidance shows a consistent pattern:

In Mohamed, rigid conditions that prevented flexible, practical operation of an HMO were struck out as disproportionate and unnecessary.
En el FTT London 2019 lock-removal case, limiting legitimate lock use was found to exceed statutory powers and be wholly unjustified.
In Hanif, the Tribunal rejected the council’s attempt to create non-statutory standards or interfere with the landlord’s discretion on lawful matters.

The present condition is analogous to all three of these decisions.

It places unlawful, rigid constraints on lawful HMO operation without any legal basis or safety justification.

Conclusion to Section 9: The Condition Is Incompatible With Law, Standards, and Practical Reality

Given that:

The Council’s own standards recognise the three rooms as interchangeable;
Flexibility is necessary to comply with statutory amenity requirements;
The lock-removal condition destroys this flexibility,
It forces impractical, burdensome, and legally problematic consequences (including unnecessary evictions and interruptions to occupancy);
It contradicts Tribunal precedent and the purpose of the Housing Act 2004;
And it prevents lawful and necessary responsive management,

the Tribunal is respectfully invited to conclude that the condition is:

Ultra vires,
Operationally destructive,
Contrary to the statutory purpose,
Inconsistent with the Council’s own standards,
Unsupported by any legislative authority, and
Therefore must be struck out in full.

10. Structural and Practical Problems

The door in question is:

A fire-resisting FD30 door with smoke seals and intumescent strips, as required elsewhere in the licence.

“Removing the lock” is not a trivial step:

It risks damaging or compromising the fire-door set;
In practice, it would require:
- replacing the lock with another certified set, or
- replacing the entire door and frame.

This:

Adds unnecessary cost and complexity;
Creates scope for accidental non-compliance;
Again underlines that the condition has not been thought through.

A condition that is technically vague, structurally awkward and functionally harmful is not a proper use of s.67 powers.

11. Case Law and Tribunal Approach

The Applicant relies on previous decisions of the First-tier Tribunal and higher courts which confirm that:

Local authorities must not use licensing conditions to create new standards beyond those set by Parliament;
Conditions must be necessary, proportionate and supported by evidence;
Arbitrary or preference-based conditions are liable to be struck out.

In particular, the Applicant refers to:

An FTT (London) 2019 decision where an arbitrary lock-removal requirement, not justified by fire safety or statutory standards, was not upheld;
Leeds City Council v Hanif, emphasising that councils cannot impose conditions that rewrite statutory standards;
Stoke-on-Trent CC v Mohamed, where conditions demanding unnecessary physical alterations were overturned as disproportionate and beyond the proper scope of HMO licensing powers.

Across multiple decisions, the common consistent approach is that:

Licence conditions must not extend beyond what is required to ensure safety and suitability;
They are not a vehicle for imposing any policy preference a council may wish to see.

The lock-removal condition here is a textbook example of that impermissible overreach.

12. Wednesbury Unreasonableness and Procedural Defects

The decision to impose this condition is irrational because it:

Pursues no legitimate statutory aim: it does not improve fire safety, management, or living conditions;
Ignores the clear safeguarding benefits of the lock, which has already prevented harm;
Conflicts with the council’s own flexible approach to room use;
Undermines the landlord’s ability to comply with Reg 4(3) and HHSRS duties;
Was adopted without any recorded risk assessment, fire-officer advice, or explanation.

No evidence has been provided that:

The lock has ever caused a safety problem; or
Its presence obstructs any escape route; or
Tenants have been unable to leave in an emergency.

A condition imposed without evidence, without balancing competing safety factors, and without coherent justification is unlawful in public-law terms.

13 – Party Prevention and Anti-Social Behaviour Management

A further, and independently compelling, reason why the lock-removal condition is unlawful and irrational is that it directly undermines the landlord’s ability to prevent parties and anti-social behaviour, both inside the HMO and in relation to neighbouring properties.

The Council’s own draft licence conditions expressly state that:

“The licence holder shall ensure that all reasonable and practical steps are taken to prevent or reduce anti-social behaviour by persons occupying or visiting the house.” (Schedule 4, Condition 2).

In other words, the Council requires the licence holder to proactively manage and minimise anti-social behaviour (ASB). This includes, in practice:

preventing late-night parties and loud gatherings;
controlling drunken behaviour;
reducing disturbance to neighbours; and
protecting the quiet enjoyment of other occupiers and adjoining premises.

In HMOs, experience shows that uncontrolled use of communal areas is one of the main triggers for ASB, particularly:

large social gatherings in the lounge;
late-night drinking sessions;
noise, shouting, music and general disorder extending into the early hours.

La thumb-turn lock on the communal living room door is a key, lawful, and proportionate tool for managing those risks. It allows the landlord or manager to:

Restrict access to the lounge at sensitive times, especially late at night, in order to prevent parties and drinking sessions that disturb other tenants and neighbours.
Limit the size of gatherings in the communal space and avoid overcrowding, which can escalate into noise, damage or disorder.
Enforce house rules, agreed with the tenants, about appropriate use of the communal lounge (e.g. no parties after a certain time, no alcohol-fuelled gatherings, etc.).
Protect the neighbours’ quiet enjoyment and reduce the likelihood of complaints, enforcement action, or reputational damage to the HMO and the area.

Crucially:

The lock is operated by thumb-turn from the inside, so it poses no restriction on escape in an emergency.
It is used as a management and ASB-control measure, not a means to trap anyone or restrict their legal rights.

By compelling removal of this lock, the Council would be:

Removing one of the main practical mechanisms available to the landlord to control parties and ASB in the property;
Making it significantly harder for the landlord to comply with the Council’s own requirement to “take reasonable and practical steps” to prevent anti-social behaviour;

Undermining the objectives of the Housing Act 2004 and HMO licensing, which aim to improve standards and reduce nuisance, not make such problems more likely.

There is a clear policy contradiction:

On the one hand, the Council insists that licence holders must minimise ASB and protect neighbours;
On the other, it seeks to remove exactly the sort of proportionate management tool (a lockable communal room with keyless egress) that allows the landlord to do so.

This contradiction renders the condition irrational in public-law terms. A condition cannot be lawful if its practical effect is to prevent the licence holder from meeting other duties imposed by the same licence and legal framework.

Moreover, party and ASB prevention is not a peripheral issue. Excessive noise, late-night disturbance, drunken behaviour and disorder are all recognised under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) as hazards capable of causing psychological stress and physical harm. The landlord is expected to take reasonable measures to mitigate those hazards, not to dismantle existing, effective controls.

The thumb-turn lock on the communal room door is:

a reasonable, targeted and proportionate measure for party and ASB control;
entirely compatible with fire-safety law and guidance;
specifically designed to support the Council’s own ASB-reduction policy.

To require its removal is therefore:

directly contrary to the stated objective of reducing anti-social behaviour;
contradictory to the licence holder’s management duty under Schedule 4, Condition 2;

irrational and disproportionate, and thus an improper use of the Council’s powers under s.67 Housing Act 2004.

For these reasons, the party-prevention and ASB-management dimension provides an additional, powerful ground on which the Tribunal should conclude that the lock-removal condition is not reasonably necessary, conflicts with the broader licensing framework, and must be struck out.

14 – Absence of This Condition in All Previous Licences Demonstrates It Is Not Lawful, Necessary, or Within the Council’s Powers

A further and compelling indicator that the lock-removal condition is unlawful, disproportionate, and outside the scope of the Council’s licensing powers is the fact that no such condition has ever been imposed in:

the previous HMO licence for this property (63 Canwick Road);
any other HMO licences issued to the Applicant by City of Lincoln Council;
licences issued by other local housing authorities for HMOs operated by the Applicant; or
any licences held across the Applicant’s portfolio over more than 15 years of continuous HMO operation.

This consistent and universal absence is highly material and cannot be dismissed as coincidence.

(a) Licensing Conditions Must Be Lawful, Necessary, and Justified

Housing Act 2004 – Sections 67 and 68

Under section 67(1) of the Housing Act 2004, a local housing authority may impose licence conditions only where they are appropriate for regulating the management, use, or occupation of the house.

Tribunal authority is clear that licence conditions must be:

grounded in statutory purpose,
supported by evidence or necessity, and
applied consistently and rationally.

A condition that has never previously been imposed, despite identical circumstances, strongly indicates that it is not necessary to achieve the statutory objectives of the Act.

(b) Legitimate Expectation and Consistency in Public Law

Public authorities are bound by the public-law principles of consistency, rationality, and legitimate expectation.

Where an operator has, over many years and multiple licences:

operated with the same physical arrangement,
been repeatedly licensed without objection, and
been treated as fully compliant,

a sudden departure requires clear statutory authority and compelling justification.

No such justification has been provided here.

The imposition of a novel and unprecedented condition, without any change in law or guidance, is arbitrary and irrational, and therefore unlawful in public-law terms.

(c) Absence of Any Statutory or Regulatory Basis

There is no provision in:

the Housing Act 2004,
the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006, or
fire-safety legislation including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005,

that prohibits the use of a thumb-turn lock on a communal room door, provided that:

the door allows keyless egress, and
fire-safety objectives are met.

The long-standing absence of such a condition across multiple licences reflects the legal reality that no statutory power exists to mandate its removal.

(d) National Fire Safety Guidance Supports Thumb-Turn Locks

LACORS Guidance

La LACORS Housing – Fire Safety Guidance expressly recognises that:

thumb-turn locks are acceptable, and
doors may be secured provided occupants can exit without a key.

This guidance has been relied upon by licensing authorities and tribunals for many years and directly contradicts the premise underlying the lock-removal condition.

It is therefore unsurprising—and legally significant—that no authority has previously sought to impose such a condition.

(e) Tribunal Practice: Arbitrary Conditions Are Routinely Struck Out

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decisions consistently confirm that:

licence conditions must not be imposed simply because an authority “prefers” a different arrangement;
conditions must not duplicate or contradict existing statutory regimes; and
conditions lacking a clear legal foundation are ultra vires.

Where conditions are novel, unsupported by statute, and inconsistent with both guidance and past practice, tribunals routinely remove them.

The complete absence of this condition from historical licences strongly indicates that authorities recognise its legal vulnerability.

(f) The Absence Is Not Accidental — It Is Legally Instructive

If a condition of this nature were:

lawful,
necessary, or
genuinely required for safety or management,

one would reasonably expect it to appear regularly and consistently in HMO licences issued across England.

It does not.

Not in the Applicant’s licences.
Not in licences issued by other authorities.
Not in tribunal-endorsed standard conditions.

This omission is telling. Authorities do not impose this condition because the law does not permit them to do so.

(g) Conclusion

The fact that:

the condition was absent from the previous licence for this property;
absent from all other licences held by the Applicant; and
absent from licensing practice generally,

demonstrates that the condition is:

unsupported by statute,
inconsistent with national guidance,
contrary to tribunal principles, and
imposed without lawful authority.

The condition is therefore unlawful, disproportionate, and ultra vires, and must be removed in its entirety.

FOCAL TRIBUNAL AUTHORITY: COMMUNAL ROOMS MUST HAVE THUMB-TURN LOCKS

10_Uxendon_Hill_Decision

Central and Decisive Point: Failure to Fit a Thumb-Turn Lock Is Treated as an Offence Because It Is a Safety Measure

It is clear from the First-tier Tribunal decision in Chowdhury v London Borough of Brent (10 Uxendon Hill) that not fitting a thumb-turn lock where required by the licence constitutes an offence, precisely because a thumb-turn lock is a fundamental safety measure.

In that case, the local authority lawfully imposed a licence condition requiring thumb-turn locks to be fitted to the communal living room door, bedrooms, and the kitchen exit, and the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that:

the condition was lawful;
compliance with it was mandatory; and
failure to comply formed part of the regulatory enforcement framework.

The Tribunal did not treat the thumb-turn lock as optional or discretionary. It treated it as an essential safety requirement forming part of the licence conditions governing safe occupation of the HMO.

What the Tribunal Decision Demonstrates

The decision demonstrates three critical propositions:

Thumb-turn locks are required for safety reasons, specifically to ensure keyless egress while allowing doors to be secured.
Failure to fit a required thumb-turn lock is capable of constituting a breach of licence conditions, and therefore an offence under the Housing Act 2004.
The Tribunal regards such requirements as orthodox, lawful, and integral to HMO safety management.

The licence condition recorded by the Tribunal required thumb-turn locks to be fitted to the communal living room door itself, not merely to final exits. This is decisive.

The Logical Consequence: The Lincoln Condition Requires Unlawful Conduct

Against that backdrop, the position adopted by the City of Lincoln Council is untenable.

By seeking to impose a licence condition that would require the removal of a thumb-turn lock, or prohibit a communal room from being capable of being secured with a thumb-turn, the Council is effectively requiring the licence holder to do something that is contrary to the safety logic of the statutory scheme.

Put plainly:

where a Tribunal-recognised licence condition requires thumb-turn locks for safety,
requiring their removal necessarily reduces safety, and
places the licence holder in a position where compliance with one authority’s condition would involve acting contrary to the law’s safety requirements.

The law cannot require a licence holder to remove a recognised safety feature whose absence is treated, in Tribunal authority, as a breach.

Increased Risk to Occupiers and Direct Conflict With the Statutory Purpose

The Tribunal decision makes clear that thumb-turn locks exist because they:

enable keyless escape in emergencies; and
protect occupiers from harm.

Removing such a lock does not improve safety. It increases risk.

A condition that increases risk to occupiers is not merely unnecessary; it is contrary to the purpose of the Housing Act 2004, which is to regulate HMOs in a way that protects health and safety.

Conclusion: The Condition Is Plainly Unlawful

The position is therefore clear.

The Tribunal decision confirms that thumb-turn locks are a required safety measure.
Failure to provide them where required is treated as a breach, and potentially an offence.
A licence condition that requires their removal or prohibits their use:
- undermines safety,
- exposes occupiers to increased risk, and
- compels the licence holder to act contrary to the statutory scheme.

Accordingly, the City of Lincoln Council is seeking to impose a condition that is unlawful, plain and simple.

On the authority of Chowdhury v London Borough of Brent alone, this condition must be struck out in full, as it requires conduct that is inconsistent with recognised HMO safety obligations and Tribunal-endorsed licensing practice.

Clarification: Meaning of “Without the Use of a Key” in Condition 25 (10 Uxendon Hill)

For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, the phrase “without the use of a key” in Condition 25 del Chowdhury v London Borough of Brent (10 Uxendon Hill) refers specifically and exclusively to egress from the room, not to the absence of a key-operated locking mechanism altogether.

In practical and industry-standard terms, this means:

the door must always be capable of being opened from the inside without a key, by means of a thumb turn; and
the door may and ordinarily does retain a key-operated cylinder on the external side, as is standard in HMOs.

This interpretation is not optional or debatable. It is compelled by the wording and structure of Condition 25 itself, which required the same type of lock to be fitted uniformly to:

all bedrooms,
the communal living room door, and
the kitchen door leading to the rear garden.

It is self-evident that bedroom doors in HMOs necessarily have key-operated external access. Accordingly, when the Tribunal-recorded condition requires thumb-turn locks “without the use of a key” across all these rooms, it can only mean without the use of a key to exit, not without a key cylinder entirely.

Thus, the Tribunal-approved condition expressly contemplates — and mandates — the standard HMO thumb-turn lock configuration used nationwide, namely:

keyed entry from the outside, and
thumb-turn, keyless egress from the inside.

This is the exact same lock type, applied consistently across bedrooms, the communal living room, and the kitchen, and it is the same mechanism as that fitted to the communal room door in the present case.

There is therefore no ambiguity, no alternative interpretation, and no scope for equivocation. The Tribunal endorsed this precise lock mechanism as lawful and mandatory for safety purposes.

Strike-Out Ground: Condition Requires Unlawful Conduct

It is clear from the First-tier Tribunal decision in Chowdhury v London Borough of Brent (10 Uxendon Hill) that thumb-turn locks are a mandatory safety measure, not an optional feature. In that case, the Council lawfully required thumb-turn locks to be fitted to the communal living room door and the kitchen exit, and the Tribunal upheld the licence and enforcement on that basis, proceeding on the footing that failure to fit such locks constitutes a breach of licence conditions and therefore an offence, precisely because they are required for occupier safety. The Tribunal did not criticise, qualify, or question that requirement in any way. Against that settled position, the City of Lincoln Council now seeks to impose a condition which would require the removal or prohibition of a thumb-turn lock on a communal room. That is not merely inconsistent with Tribunal-recognised licensing practice: it would compel the licence holder to act contrary to the statutory safety logic of the Housing Act 2004, increase risk to occupiers, and undermine a measure whose absence has been treated by a Tribunal as unlawful. A licensing authority cannot lawfully require a licence holder to remove a recognised safety feature whose absence constitutes a breach. The condition therefore requires unlawful conduct and must be struck out in full.

Departure From Lawful Practice Toward Unlawful Overreach

It is particularly striking that:

La previous licence for this same property contained no such requirement; and
The layout, use, and management of the communal room have not materially changed.

The only change is the Council’s attempt to extend its powers in a way that is:

Not grounded in legislation;
Not supported by fire-safety guidance;
Not aligned with national standards;
Not justified by evidence or risk assessment.

This suggests a shift away from lawful, standardised licensing practice into an area of unwarranted regulatory overreach, precisely the kind of scenario in which the Tribunal has historically intervened.

Final Cumulative Conclusion — The Condition Must Be Struck Out (Too Many Independent Reasons)

The Applicant respectfully submits that the lock-removal condition cannot lawfully stand. The reasons are cumulative, mutually reinforcing, and independently decisive. Put simply: there are too many separate legal and practical defects for the condition to survive. If the Tribunal is not with the Applicant on one ground, then it must be with the Applicant on the next — and so on — because each ground, by itself, is sufficient to strike the condition out.

First, the condition is ultra vires. The statutory licensing power under ss.64–67 Housing Act 2004 is not a free-standing discretion to prohibit anything an officer dislikes. It allows conditions only insofar as they are appropriate, necessary and proportionate to secure the HMO’s suitability and safe management. A condition compelling the removal of a lawful, fire-compliant, keyless-egress thumb-turn mechanism has no statutory anchor and does not advance any statutory aim. If the condition is not struck out on that basis alone, it must be struck out for the next reason.

Second, the condition is not supported by fire safety law or by the licensing regulations. The relevant statutory requirement is that doors on relevant routes must be openable easily and immediately from the inside without a key; a thumb-turn is the canonical mechanism that achieves exactly that. The Council’s condition does not improve fire safety; it dismantles a compliant safety feature. If it is not struck out for lack of legislative basis and fire-safety justification, it must be struck out for the next reason.

Third, the condition is positively contrary to safety and safeguarding duties. HMOs inherently carry foreseeable risks of conflict, intimidation and violence; this is squarely within the harm-prevention logic of HHSRS and within the manager’s duty under Regulation 4(3) of the HMO Management Regulations 2006 to take reasonably required measures to protect occupiers from injury. Removing a thumb-turn lock removes a proven protective control and makes the property less safe, particularly for women and other vulnerable occupiers. If it is not struck out for undermining statutory safeguarding duties, it must be struck out for the next reason.

Fourth, the condition is irrational and Wednesbury unreasonable. It pursues no coherent statutory purpose, is unsupported by any recorded risk assessment, and is imposed despite there being no allegation that the lock has ever impeded escape, caused danger, or obstructed any route. A condition that increases risk, undermines management duties, and is unsupported by evidence is the textbook definition of irrationality. If it is not struck out for irrationality, it must be struck out for the next reason.

Fifth, the condition is self-contradictory because it prevents the licence holder from complying with other duties the Council itself insists upon, including proactive management of anti-social behaviour and nuisance. Noise, crowding, and sleep disturbance are recognised hazards under HHSRS and are common HMO management risks. The thumb-turn lock is a practical, proportionate management tool to prevent late-night disorder, overcrowding of the lounge, and nuisance to other tenants and neighbours — all while maintaining keyless egress. Removing it makes compliance harder, not easier. If it is not struck out for internal contradiction, it must be struck out for the next reason.

Sixth, the condition unlawfully destroys lawful room-use flexibility that is inherent in the statutory design of HMO regulation and explicitly recognised in amenity standards. The Housing Act 2004 is outcome-based: it requires adequate amenity and suitability, not rigid room labels. The Council’s own approach recognises multiple rooms as capable of lawful designation as sleeping or communal space. The lock-removal condition unlawfully converts the property into a single point of failure and forces unstable outcomes: inability to close the room for repairs, deep cleaning, pest control, emergencies, or temporary reconfiguration — with avoidable decants and disruptions as the only alternative. A condition that makes lawful management impracticable is outside proper licensing powers. If it is not struck out for destroying necessary management flexibility, it must be struck out for the next reason.

Seventh, the condition is technically and structurally unsound. The door is a fire-resisting set; “removing the lock” is not a trivial act and risks compromising certification, increasing cost and introducing non-compliance risk for no safety benefit. A technically vague, structurally harmful and operationally destructive condition is not a proper use of s.67 powers. If it is not struck out for practical and technical incoherence, it must be struck out for the next reason.

Eighth, the condition is unprecedented and inconsistent with historic licensing practice. It was absent from the prior licence for this property; absent from other licences held by the Applicant; and absent from ordinary licensing practice generally. There has been no change in law, no change in guidance, and no material change in risk that could justify the sudden introduction of a novel prohibition. This inconsistency is legally instructive: the most plausible reason it is not ordinarily imposed is because authorities recognise it has no proper legal basis. If it is not struck out for inconsistency and lack of precedent, it must be struck out for the next reason.

Ninth — and decisively — Tribunal authority itself demonstrates that the Council’s position is untenable. In Chowdhury v London Borough of Brent (10 Uxendon Hill), the Tribunal recorded and proceeded upon a lawful licence condition requiring thumb-turn locks to be fitted to the communal living room door y to the kitchen door. The Tribunal upheld enforcement on the basis that such safety conditions are mandatory and enforceable. It follows that a licensing authority cannot lawfully demand the opposite. A condition that compels the removal of a Tribunal-recognised safety measure is not merely questionable: it is legally incoherent. If it is not struck out on every ground above, it must be struck out on this Tribunal-authority ground alone.

Tenth, the cumulative case is now so overwhelming, and the legal defects so self-evident from the documents and statutory framework, that this issue does not realistically require detailed oral exploration at a hearing. The Tribunal can determine, simply by reading the licence condition, the governing legislation, and the supporting materials, that the condition is unlawful, irrational, and inconsistent with the statutory scheme and Tribunal-recognised practice. The proper course is therefore for the condition to be struck out on the papers on this point alone.

For all these reasons — and any one of them is sufficient — the lock-removal condition is ultra vires, irrational, unsupported by any safety requirement, contrary to safeguarding and management duties, inconsistent with amenity standards, operationally destructive, and incompatible with Tribunal-recognised licensing practice. The Tribunal is therefore respectfully invited to conclude that the condition cannot lawfully stand and must be struck out in full.

Thumb-Turn Lock on the Ground Floor Communal Living Room