The Haringey HMO appeal concerned a six-person lawful-development certificate claim in Tottenham, where a substantial bundle of tenancy agreements, bank statements and witness evidence failed to establish the full ten-year planning history claimed.
Inspector David Jones found that the paperwork did not prove who was actually living at the Great Cambridge Road property, how many people occupied it at key points, or whether the same Class C4 use continued without significant interruption. The appeal was dismissed on 30th September 2026.
Ten years had to be proved, not simply asserted
This Haringey HMO appeal concerned an application under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a certificate confirming use as a six-person HMO within Use Class C4.
The application was made on 25th November 2024. The Inspector therefore treated the central question as whether the appellant had shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the change to a six-person HMO happened on or before 25th November 2014 and then continued without significant interruption for ten years.
There was an added Article 4 complication. Great Cambridge Road is in White Hart Lane ward, one of the east Haringey wards where the Council removed the permitted development right for changes from Class C3 dwellinghouse to Class C4 HMO. Haringey confirmed the Direction in 2013 and it came into force on 30th November 2013.
The Inspector noted that the Direction was not retrospective. That matters because a change lawfully completed before an Article 4 Direction takes effect is not made unlawful by the later withdrawal of permitted development rights. But the evidence still had to establish what use had actually begun, when it began and whether it continued.
On the appellant’s own case, the property had operated as an HMO since August 2014. That date was after the Article 4 Direction had taken effect, so the ten-year immunity case became important. A statutory declaration later introduced an earlier 2013 date, but that contradiction ultimately weakened rather than strengthened this Haringey HMO appeal.
Haringey HMO appeal: six ASTs started only in May 2020
The appellant produced six Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreements, one for each of Rooms 1 to 6. All six were dated in May 2020 and each was for a fixed term of 12 months.
A further agreement dated April 2021 covered the whole property for 36 months and was signed by a single tenant. The problem was that contractual paperwork was not the same thing as proof of the planning use on the ground.
“The existence of an AST or other tenancy agreement does not, of itself, mean that the property was occupied.”
Inspector David Jones
The Inspector said the agreements did not necessarily show that tenants actually took up occupation, that the stated end dates matched when people moved out, or whether other tenancy arrangements overlapped with them.
The April 2021 agreement was particularly limited because it did not identify all of the tenants, the rooms they occupied or when each occupation began.
Even taking the documents at face value, the Inspector found that the tenancy evidence only covered the period from May 2020 to April 2024. That left roughly the first half of the claimed ten-year period unsupported by those agreements.
Bank statements showed money, not occupation
The appellant also submitted 35 pages of bank statements. Incoming payments from “Range Homes Sales” were highlighted, generally appearing monthly and ranging from around £1,100 to £3,400.
Those payments helped show a financial relationship connected with the property, but they did not establish the occupancy facts needed for the certificate.
Only one payment appeared each month. The Inspector therefore could not tell who was paying rent, how many rooms were occupied or whether six people were living at the property at the same time.
The earliest bank payment supplied was from October 2021. It could not fill the evidential gap between the claimed commencement in 2013 or 2014 and the later documentary record.
A separate lease dated September 2023 between Range Homes and Assisted Care Ltd referred to use of the property as temporary housing accommodation for three years. Again, it supported a more recent housing use, but did little to establish the necessary ten-year Class C4 history to help support this Haringey HMO appeal.
2013 or 2014? The chronology did not agree with itself
For the years before May 2020, the appellant’s case depended heavily on a statutory declaration from a former occupier, Costaki Karayianni, together with the appellant’s own letter.
The declaration said that the former occupier had lived at the property from 2013 to 2020 and that it operated as an HMO throughout that period.
But the Inspector found the declaration short on the detail needed to prove the precise planning use. It did not identify how many tenants were living there, the nature of their occupation or whether there had been breaks in the occupation of individual rooms.
More seriously, the declaration said the HMO use began in 2013. The appellant’s own letter and the lawful-development certificate application both said 2014.
Those dates potentially carried very different planning consequences because Haringey’s Article 4 Direction came into force on 30th November 2013. The conflicting accounts therefore went to the heart of the chronology rather than being a minor discrepancy.
The Inspector concluded that the inconsistency called the reliability of the evidence into question. He was not satisfied that the appellant had produced sufficiently “precise and unambiguous evidence” to prove the six-person HMO use on the balance of probabilities.
Why the Haringey HMO appeal fits a wider evidence pattern
The decision follows several recent lawful-use appeals in which extensive paperwork still failed to prove the planning facts claimed.
In Surbiton, Planning Geek reported that a 2009 HMO licence did not bridge gaps in the occupation evidence. The Inspector there found that the licence, current photographs and plans did not establish when the relevant HMO use began or how the property had been occupied throughout the necessary period.
A recent Liverpool HMO lawful-use appeal reached a similar destination despite licences, licence agreements and a statutory declaration. Again, the key weakness was the difference between documents showing an entitlement or intention to occupy and evidence showing what use actually occurred.
This Haringey HMO appeal adds a particularly useful point. The age or volume of a document bundle is not enough if the documents begin too late or contradict the claimed commencement date. Six tenancy agreements from 2020 cannot, without other convincing evidence, prove what was happening in 2014.
Planning Geek’s guide to proving a lawful HMO looks at the wider evidence that can help establish occupation and continuity. Our certificate of lawfulness guide covers the wider section 191 framework.
Why the Haringey HMO appeal failed
For HMO owners and advisers, the practical lesson is to test the evidence against the exact planning proposition before an application is lodged. The question is not whether there is a sizeable file. It is whether the file proves the precise use, the relevant commencement date and continuity through the whole period relied upon.
- Tenancy agreements should be supported by evidence that the named occupiers actually took up occupation
- Rent or bank records are more useful when payments can be linked to identified occupiers, rooms and dates
- Witness statements should explain what the witness personally knew, including occupancy numbers and any breaks
- Different claimed commencement dates should be reconciled before submission
- Where an Article 4 Direction sits within the chronology, the date on which the use began may have a separate legal significance
The case is also a reminder that a lawful-development certificate appeal is determined on evidence and law, not on whether an HMO is desirable in planning-policy terms. The Inspector’s task was to decide whether the refusal of the certificate was well founded.
In the Haringey HMO appeal, the documentary record did not carry the appellant over the balance-of-probabilities threshold. The appeal was therefore dismissed and Haringey’s refusal of the certificate stood.
Any certificate of lawfulness can always be resubmitted if new evidence is provided. Planning Geek is always happy to assist with such applications. Unless enforcement get involved, it doesn’t close the door.
Appeal reference: APP/Y5420/X/25/3367051. Haringey application reference: HGY/2024/3217. The appeal was decided by Inspector David Jones on 30th September 2026.
0 Comments