An application to continue the use of a property in Basingstoke as house of multiple occupancy (HMO) has been refused.

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council received an application for continued use of the five-bedroom property at 105 Abbey Road into an HMO as the applicant said the house had been let to six occupants for 14 years.

It is a two-storey mid-terraced property.

To get permission, the applicant had to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the house has been continually used as an HMO and not as a dwellinghouse for 10 years.

READ MORE: Basingstoke: Plan to convert Winchester Road B&B to HMO

The applicant submitted a number of emails between him and tenants regarding end of tenancies and other issues within the property as well as a floor plan.

However the council officers said there was not sufficient evidence to confirm that the use of the property was as an HMO and not a rented property.

“There is no evidence that the tenants did not at any time form a single household as no tenancy agreements have been submitted in support of the application,” the officer said in the refusal notice.

“There is also no evidence that it is used as the tenants only or main residence or evidence to confirm that this was the property's only use.

“While there is some evidence of rents being paid in that the notice emails give an indication of some of the tenants paying rent, this is not comprehensive and there is no evidence regarding the sharing of amenities and what each room provides as part of each of the tenancies.”

SEE ALSO: Basingstoke mum appeals for help finding lost wedding ring

The officer said that the burden of proof rests with the applicant.

“The evidence submitted in support of this application is not clear - it is a jumble of emails, and it is not for the officer to pick through and try and work out who was in what room for how long and whether they had a tenancy agreement; it is for the applicant to detail this in a statutory declaration, supported by appropriate documentation,” the notice said.

“Therefore, in light of the above and as the applicant’s evidence is not sufficiently precise and unambiguous, it is recommended that the Certificate of Lawfulness be refused.”