Global 100 Limited v Carlos Jimenez

Decision date: 25 February 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 50 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerned whether a five‑storey former office occupied by about 10–12 property "guardians" under Temporary Licence Agreements was an HMO under s.254(2) Housing Act 2004, focusing on whether the living accommodation's "only use" was residential. The First‑tier Tribunal held it was an unlicensed HMO and made rent repayment orders; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders. The UT held that contractual licence terms requiring guardian duties did not create a separate non‑residential use of the living accommodation.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

The correct approach to the "sole use" condition in s.254(2)(d) is to assess how the property is actually used, not to let the contractual terms between occupier and provider determine the point. Services or duties performed by occupants that are consequential to their residential occupation (such as remaining on site to deter trespass or reporting damage) do not constitute a concurrent separate "use" of the living accommodation sufficient to defeat the statutory test for an HMO.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The tribunal observed that the statutory purpose of Part 2 supports defining HMO coverage by the character and use of the property rather than by contractual detail; it also noted but did not decide whether such premises would be a "dwelling" under Part 1 for general housing‑condition powers.