A Liverpool councillor has highlighted a systemic failure that is allowing Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) to proliferate without proper planning permission, exploiting what he describes as a 'crack in the system'. Councillor Joe Dunne, representing the Anfield area, stated that property owners are obtaining HMO licenses from Liverpool City Council (LCC) without ever securing the necessary planning approval.
HMO License Granted Despite Lack of Planning Permission
On July 1, 2026, LCC's planning department refused a 'Certificate of Existing Lawful Development' application for a nine-bed HMO in Anfield. The property had been operating as an HMO under the management of Serco for over a decade, with a valid HMO license but no planning permission. Councillor Dunne questioned how this oversight occurred, stating: 'Why this wasn’t flagged to the planning department as not having planning permission or even an application remains a question we will get to the bottom of.'
Neighbours had long raised concerns about the property, and Dunne praised the planning officer's decision as 'a positive step for our community.' However, he emphasized the need for better coordination between licensing and planning departments: 'Licensing and Planning need to be joined up.'
Serco and Home Office Involvement
The property in question was linked to Serco accommodation under a Home Office contract for asylum seekers. Councillor Dunne plans to raise the issue with Serco and the Home Office, asking what checks were carried out. He clarified: 'To be clear, this is not about the people placed in accommodation. It is about making sure landlords, contractors and public bodies follow the rules.'
A Serco spokesperson responded: 'Seeking HMO permission is the responsibility of the owner/landlord of a property, not Serco. This address has been used as a HMO since 2012 prior to the introduction of the Article 4 Direction. Any outstanding permission required by Liverpool City Council is being managed by the landlord.'
Property Owner's Perspective
The company that owns the property, Propbuy, acquired it 18 months ago and assumed all necessary permissions were in place, as the property had been used as an HMO for over 10 years and had an inherited HMO license and leasehold agreement with Serco. Upon discovering the lack of planning permission, Propbuy applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness, which was rejected. The company intends to appeal the decision and expressed being 'flabbergasted' at the disconnect between LCC's planning and licensing departments.
Systemic Issues in Tuebrook
The ECHO has extensively reported on unregulated HMOs in Tuebrook, which residents have dubbed the 'HMO capital of Liverpool.' Councillor Dunne noted that property owners are exploiting the lack of communication between council departments, setting up HMOs without planning permission and facing few consequences. He stated: 'These property owners are exploiting a crack in the system where the council's planning and licensing departments don't seem to speak to each other.'
In May 2024, Dunne raised concerns about a nine-bed HMO in L13 operating without planning permission. LCC's planning enforcement team acknowledged a breach and sent a letter to the owner, but as of July 2026, no further action had been taken, and Dunne continued to receive complaints.
Council's Response
LCC's Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Hetty Wood, acknowledged residents' concerns and said the council has strengthened enforcement, including additional housing enforcement capacity and a wider review of HMO management. She stated: 'HMOs must be properly regulated, safe for tenants and managed in a way that respects surrounding communities.'
A LCC spokesperson clarified: 'Planning and HMO licensing are separate legal processes. A HMO licence does not, in itself, grant planning permission or regularise the planning status of a property.' The spokesperson added that officers from planning, private sector housing, and other teams are working together to investigate reported breaches, but declined to comment on individual cases due to ongoing enforcement processes.
