The HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE has on 25 March 2026 published a CONSULTATION document, seeking views pn proposed changes to STATUTORY FIRE SAFETY GUIDANCE, (1) updating external wall guidance, and (2) recommending new provision of evacuation lifts.

HOUSING 35 PLUS LIMITED v NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 204 is concerned with EXEMPTIONS from the requirements in the HOUSING ACT 2004 in relation to licensing of HMOs, specifically with whether the appellant’s Rules required that all MANAGEMENT DECISIONS are taken by members at a general meeting.

MUNEMO v CITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON COUNCIL ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 329 raises important issues about both the interpretation and the application of Section 191 of the HOUSING ACT 1996 on becoming homeless intentionally. The Court of Apeal observes that Section 191 is short and clearly structured, but has been the subject of extensive analysis in the authorities, “ not all of which point in the same direction “, and which the Court of Appeal reviews. The Court refers to “ a welltrodden series of 6 questions “, and answers them from para 22, with respect to the time at which an applicant’s deliberate act or omission must have taken place.

The Senedd has enacted the Building Safety ( Wales ) Act 2026 . This establishes a new building safety regime for residents of SHARED BUILDINGS across Wales, regardless of building height and tenure. The legislation (1) requires FIRE RISK ASSESSMENTS BY COMPETENT PERSONS, (2) establishes LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR BUILDING MANAGERS, and (3) empowers residents with ROUTES OF REDRESS.

The Ministry of Justice has on 15 February 2026 launched a CONSULTATION, to run until 9 April 2026, on SENTENCING GUIDELINES for housing-related offences, such as unlawful eviction and unlawful harassment and offences related to HMOs.

Xiaohan Xu v USAF (2025) UKUT 422 (LC) concerns RENT REPAYMENT ORDERS in the cases of (1) houses in MULTIPLE OCCUPATION and (2) houses in areas of selective licensing designated by the local housing authority under the Housing Act 2004, which is not an award of compensation, but where the conduct of the landlord may be a relevant consideration.

INVESTVIEW LTD v TANDRIDGE DC (2025) UKUT 405 (LC) concerns the regulation of HMOs under the Housing Act 2004, PROHIBITION ORDERS imposed in response to what the Council regarded as a number of HAZARDS, including INADEQUATE SPACE, relevant SPACE STANDARDS, and the risk posed for occupants. The Court analysed the legal regimes in relation to the SIZE OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION. These are (1) Planning : paras 5-7; (2) Statutory Overcrowding under the Housing Act 1985 : paras 8 & 9; (3) the Housing Health and safety rating System , under Part 1 of the 2004 Act and 2005 regulations : paras 10-12; and (4) the Decent Homes Standard : para 13.

In Tower Hamlets LBC v Leaseholders (2025) EWCA CIv 1591 the Court of Appeal explains that the effect of provisions in the Right to Buy legislation is that a landlord can recover a contribution to the cost of making good a structural defect in a building only if the defect was notified to the tenant before the lease was granted or if the landlord did not become aware of the defect until 10 years after the grant of the lease : paras 43-46 inc & 64-66 inc.

OXFORD HOTEL INVESTMENTS LTD v Great Yarmouth BC (2025) UKUT 387  (LC) at paras 18-28 holds that a microwave oven does NOT amount to “ cooking facilities”, for the purposes of the definition of an HMO in Section 254(A) of the Housing Act 1996, with the result that not all 3 of the “ basic amenities” (toilet, personal washing facilities and cooking facilities) are not present and there is not a “self-contained flat” but rather a part of an HMO.

LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD v A  (2025) EWCA Civ 1355 concerns OUT OF BOROUGH PLACEMENTS. The Court of Appeal holds that a failure to give NOTIFICATION under Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 within the statutory time limit does NOT affect the suitability of accommodation offered. It is the suitability of the offered accommodation that is the subject of any review . Any appeal must challenge the lawfulness of that decision. The duty under Section 208 is a “collateral duty”. Breach does not impugn the lawfulness of a review decision or the suitability of the offered accommodation. An appeal under Section 204 is limited to grounds that go to the legality of the review decision.