Under current law, three of more unrelated people living in a house counts as multiple occupancy, requiring the property owner to fit all manor of expensive modifications to the building. However, a couple (who do not even need to be married) and a third lodger would not be subject to the same laws.
I propose that either the requirements for multiple occupancy be changed, or any property home to three or more adults be subject to the same regulations.
Why does this idea matter?
Under the current system, single people who are sharing a property for the sake of cutting their living costs (a common occurrence, especially in rural areas with a poor economy) are unfairly victimised by this law.
If they wish to rent a large property, they cannot house more than a pair of people under one roof unless some of them are somehow related. By either applying this law to all households of three or mode adults, or raising the cap to four or more persons, property owners will be able to let their houses more easily. This will improve the economy as homes lay fallow for shorter periods of time, improve housing by making it easier for people to live together, and leave these tenants with a little more money in their pockets.
It's common sense- how is a home with three unrelated adults more of a fire or health and safety risk than one three adults, two of whom happen to be in a relationship?