New terrain for Housing Lawyers: the Renters’ Rights Ac… — Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and a very warm welcome to this webinar on the new terrain for housing lawyers: the Renters' Rights Act 2026.

Thank you all very much for joining us. We've got a lot in store for you in terms of the content here.

During the webinar, we won't have questions, but if you put your questions in the Q&A box on the Zoom platform, then we'll try and address as many of them as we can after the substance of what the speakers have to say.

Of course, this webinar has been brought to you by the Garden Court Chambers housing team.

And I'm very grateful to my colleagues for all the work they've done in putting it on. And again, thank you all for being here and joining us.

On the 1st of May 2026, the most significant reforms to the private rented sector for a generation will come into effect. Private tenants who for many years have often been beyond the help of legal aid lawyers will enjoy a range of new rights and more promising prospects of enforcing existing ones. This seminar will look at the changes that these reforms are likely to make to legal aid housing practice, as well as giving an overview of the Renters' Rights Act itself and explaining some of its key provisions. It's quite an act. I don't know if you've seen it. The event will cover the exhaustive list of grounds for possession, strategies for avoiding abuse of the new grounds, some common scenarios for possession disputes, the interrelationship between the Renters' Rights Act and homelessness law, the legality of informal rent increases in cases where renter is alleged, and housing conditions disputes under the Renters' Rights Act.

I'll now introduce for you the two speakers who are going to address these interesting new issues.

First, we have Nick Bano, who's a specialist in housing law and a widely recognized author and campaigner on housing rights. He's a co-author of one of the leading textbooks on homelessness law and acted as counsel to the Renters Reform Coalition during the passage of the Renters Rights Act 2025. Nick has represented tenants and homeless people in many of the most important housing law cases in recent years. He works closely with renters unions, housing campaigners, and policymakers. The legal directories consistently recognize his expertise in this field as well as his inventiveness and commitment to his clients.

He's joined this evening by Angar Monk, who is also a housing law specialist, having worked in this area prior to joining the bar, employed by Hackney Community Law Center. Angar regularly conducts work across all areas of housing law, including homelessness, allocations, possession, disrepair, as well as accommodation-related aspects of community care law. Angar's comprehensive and in-depth knowledge of housing law enables her to provide practical advice and creative solutions in complex cases.

So without any further ado, I'll hand over now to our speakers for the evening.

Thanks so much, Mike. And thank you to everybody here who has joined us for this session, in which we will be doing our best to give you an overview of the first stage of implementation of the Renters' Rights Act 2025.

Obviously, this is a landmark piece of legislation in housing law, and it is radically going to change the landscape of our field, particularly in respect of the rights of private tenants. We're going to be focusing on stage one implementation measures, but that is actually far too much content for one webinar. So, it's not going to be possible to cover all of it in one session. Doubtless, people that are here tonight will be attending lots of sessions in relation to this legislation, and I imagine a lot of you have some familiarity already. Could we go to the first slide, please?

Thanks so much. So, what I'm going to try and focus on today is the changes to tenancies, the grounds for possession, some new duties of landlords, if we've got time for that, and the homelessness provisions.

I'm afraid that there are elements of this that are not in the slides at all and will have to be addressed on another occasion. And it's also possible, I'm going to see how we get on with time, but it might be that we have to skip over some of the content in my slides. But we will share the slides with you after the webinar so that you'll have at least what I've prepared. I think the way that we're going to structure this is I'm going to go through the provisions, which is obviously going to be unavoidably a little bit dry, but hopefully it's going to reinforce our new knowledge of this framework.

Then your reward for sticking with us will be that you get Nick's segment, in which he's going to give you some ideas about how we might begin litigating under this legislation. So that's the exciting portion.

So in short, in terms of what has just been implemented on the 1st of May, we've got obviously the headline tenancy reform, the end of private as at the end of section 21. We've got the new grounds for possession, which have taken effect in respect of most tenancies now.

We've got the end of rental bidding, which is not something I've prepared on today. Rights to request a pet. We've got again prohibition on rental discrimination, which again is something that I'm just not going to have time to deal with today.

As well as the strengthening of local authority enforcement powers and the introduction of an enforcement duty that Nick is going to talk to you a little bit about later.

There's strengthening of rent repayment orders, which is outside the scope of this webinar, and changes to part seven, which I am going to try and deal with if we've got time. Could we go to the next slide?

So the big headline: the end of assured shorthold tenancies is here. And that's been achieved through section two of the Renters Rights Act, which essentially repeals section 6A and the entirety of chapter 2 of the Housing Act 1988.

Now, that provision is in effect from the 1st of May but only in respect of private non-social housing assured tenancies. We're expecting it to be implemented in respect of social tenancies next year sometime.

But also, this is subject to the transitional provisions, which I'm going to talk to you a little bit about. So it's not quite the case yet that every single private tenancy has become an assured tenancy.

The definition of social housing is provided in the Housing and Regeneration Act, so familiar to us. Next slide, please.

So all existing assured shorthold tenancies, apart from those that are subject to transitional provisions, have now become assured tenancies.

Basically, the way that that's affected is through section one of the Renters Rights Act, which provides that terms that provide for fixed terms in tenancy agreements are of no effect.

And there are also changes where relevant to tenancy periods because from now on all tenancy periods are going to be essentially a month or shorter.

Where they're not, there's a fairly prescriptive mechanism by which we have to calculate what the new tenancy term and rent will be.

Literally, the formula for calculating the rent is contained in the legislation. The exact way that that's calculated will depend on what provisions are there.

But if you have tenancies that purport to have longer than one month periods, they're going to convert into monthly. Next slide, please.

Tenants can end by two months' notice to quit. There is a provision that says that they can agree...

chapter 2 of the housing act 1988. Um now that provision is in effect um from the 1 of May but only in respect of private non-social housing um assured tenencies. Um we're we're expecting it to be implemented in respect of social

tenencies next year sometime. Um but also this is subject to the transitional provisions which I'm going to talk to you a little bit about. Um so it's not it's not quite the case yet that every single um private teny has become um an

assured teny. Um the definition of social housing is is is that that's provided in um the housing and regeneration act. So familiar to us. Next slide please.

So all existing um assured short hall tenencies apart from those that are subject to um transitional provisions have now become assured tenencies. Um and basically they will have then the way that that's affected is through section one of the renters rights act

which provides that terms that provide for fixed terms in teny agreements are of no effect. Um, and that there's also then changes where relevant to tenency periods because from from now on all teny periods are going to be essentially

a month or shorter. Um, and where they're not there's a there's a fairly sort of prescriptive mechanism by which uh we have to calculate what what the new tenency term and rent will be. And literally the formula for calculating

the rent is contained in the legislation. Um and the the way that the exact way that that's calculated will depend on what um what provisions are there. But if you have got tenencies that purport to have longer than one

month periods um they're going to convert into um monthly. Next slide please. Um tenants can end by two months notice to quit. Um there is a provision that says that they can agree a lesser period in writing with the

landlord. Um but that agreement has to be agreed by all tenants if it's a joint teny. um that th those amendments are um under section 20 of the Renters Rights Act and it's essentially amended section five of the protection from eviction

act. Next slide please. Um so we still have some exceptions. So basically this only applies to tenencies that were already assured tenencies albeit they might have been short under the housing act 1988. So it does exclude licenses um and tenencies that were

already incapable of being assured um which are are things that we should be fairly familiar with. Um it doesn't apply to pre um 1988 198 housing act 1988 tenencies so ones prior to um 1989.

Um it doesn't apply to high ratable value tenencies or those at low rent. Um and it doesn't apply to long leases. Now what a long lease is depends on whether it's a pre-commencement or a post commencement. So um there's also a grace

period of two months. So basically a lease that begins um 2 months after the commencement date um if it's in excess of 21 years um then it won't be subject to the assured um tenency regime anymore. But um it for for tenencies up

to the the date 2 months after commencement. So that'll be the first of 1st of July. Um those anything over seven between 7 and 21 will also um be considered to be long leases that are excluded.

Um there's a new exclusion for student letings which is quite um specific as to to what circumstances it applies in. Um and we still have the um exclusion of course for resident landlords. Um so uh they will not be become uh assured

tenencies. Next slide please. Right. So transitional cases. This stuff is quite um involved and it's going to be something that we we have to be be quite careful with especially over the sort of coming months while everything is bedding in. Um basically the pro

there's there's when you're looking at transitional um provisions, the primary place you're going to find those is in schedule six of the Renters Rights Act. um which some of you may have already looked at. Um but basically there are provisions in there that say

that where um a section 21 or a section 8 notice has been a valid one of those two has been served before the commencement. So up to and including 30th of April this year. Um what that does is it it will prevent for a for an

applicable period um the entire application of um the the the sections of the renters's rights act which um which reform the teny and turn it into an assured teny and um prohibit reliance on section 21.

um now that basically it's a there's a grace period now of 3 months until um the the 31st of July 2026 inclusive um in which pro proceedings can still be brought so long as the notice is otherwise valid um

based on a pre-commencement notice. If that's done, um the suspensive effect of these transitional provisions is going to continue for the duration of that um of those proceedings until they're finally resolved. So it might be that we do find um that we're still dealing with

the old regime even in respect of private tenencies for quite some time where um proceedings are issued and contested. Um so it's something we need to be aware of. One thing that I was thinking as I was mulling over these

transitional provisions earlier today is that there might conceivably be situations where um we actually want to argue that um the transitional provisions prevent reliance on the new grounds um because it is possible because you it's not at the landlord's

choice. essentially if if the transitional provisions have suspended the effect of of um the the relevant sections of the renters's rights act then that will have just happened and it'll be equally possible for the tenant to say well you can't rely on the new

grounds of possession too. So, I think if we've got a case where a landlord's relying on um new grounds for possession that wouldn't otherwise have been available, we should be checking whether there has been a valid notice served and

whether there might be any extent proceedings um in relation to um a valid notice that was served pre-commencement to see whether that's got an impact on the ability to rely on new grounds as well. Next slide, please.

There's a lot more transitional provisions. Um there's transitional provisions that rep that that apply to specific grounds. Um and they they really are quite complicated, too complicated for me to usefully um set out in um a general talk on the act. So,

what what I'm going to suggest that everybody does is for for the time being at least um while we're getting used to this legislation, every time you have a case um that is is under the new regime, you want to be not only checking the

amended housing act, but also making sure that you just check schedule six of the renters's rights act to see whether there's any relevant transitional provisions and also um the further transitional provisions that are contained in the commencement regulations for this um stage of

implementation. because there is really quite a lot of of quite detailed stuff in there and you might find that it's relevant to your particular facts. Um, next slide please.

Okay, so now we're getting on to the new grounds for possession. Um so that as I said these apply to now all private tenencies um private assured tenencies um except the ones that um have are subject to the transitional provisions

that have suspended the effect of of the changes. Um so there are a couple of new there are quite a few different changes and I'm not going to be able to go through every single one of these grounds because we would we would be

here till Christmas. Um but um some things to look out for, you're probably all very well aware that there's new notice periods. Um so if we need to be checking that we we we've got our head around what the new notice periods are

for the grounds. Um there's also a lot of the grounds now have a requirement by the landlord to have given a prior notice before the teny begins um in that that that ground might be used. for the most part that is not going to be

particularly relevant to us because um apart from I think in one instance I'm not sure if it's one but there's definitely at least one instance um it's not actually a defense to possession in most of the cases um most of the cases

um it essentially gives rise to liability that the local authority can um enforce in different ways um which I may not have time to go into that but there is quite a lot of detail in the slides on how that works. One thing I

would suggest is if if you're on duty or if you're at a first possession hearing where you haven't got a defense other than the fact that the land well, it's not a defense, but you but you can see

that the landlord hasn't complied with that, maybe ask for it to be recorded in some way in a recital because then you can hand that order to the local authority and at least um the local authority's got something that they can

use to potentially consider fining um that landlord for failure to comply. Um, watch out for rent act tenencies by succession um because they've got their own set of um prior notice requirements.

So, so not rent tenencies but assured tenencies that are um by succession to a rent teny. They've got different requirements that you need to be aware of um which I'm not going to go into the detail of. Uh [snorts] next slide

please. Okay. um the mandatory grounds um which is the the the main area where we're looking at new content here. Um there there are a lot of new mandatory grounds. I suspect the two that we're going to that we're going to see the

most of are the first two. Um there is an amended ground one um which is essentially occupation by landlord or family member. Um this is only available after the first year of the teny has has elapsed. Um and it has a 4-month notice

period. Um, and the wording of the ground is that the landlord requires the dwelling house as the only or principal home of him, spouse, civil partner, and then a longer amended list of family members um that can be included. Um, now

it's going to be Nick will talk to you about his ideas about defending these these cases, but I think it it's important to recognize it is definitely going to be really difficult. We'll soon find out what will and won't work in

terms of the evidential threshold for these these um these grounds. Um but this this is one of the sort of weaknesses in in the renters's rights act as far as tenants protections go.

[snorts] Um it is subject to restrictions on releting which I will talk to you a little bit about um when we get to it. Um but essentially that that's not relevant to whether or not you can defend the case. Uh next slide

please. Uh the other the other one that is going to be an issue is ground 1A. Um and this is again only available after the first year of the teny or um sooner if um the landlord's been served with a compulsory

acquisition notice. Um now this ground isn't available for something called legacy assured tenencies and those are tenies that were already um not shorthold before the commencement of the right renters rights act. So they won't be able to use ground 1A in if if if

there was already an assured teny in place. Um, again, it's got a four-month notice period. Um, and the wording of the ground is that the landlord intends to sell a freehold or leaseold interest in the dwelling house or to grant a

lease of the dwelling house for a term term certain of more than 21 years not terminable before the end of that term.

Um, so we're looking at freehold or long lease holds. Um, watch out for rent act successes because um, this this doesn't apply to them. Um and again it's also subject to restrictions on releting the the the releting restrictions are only

in respect of grounds one and one a we'll come to that. Uh next slide please.

Right. So I've now just done a big long list. So um these are there's a various new um that we already had a sale by mortgage lender that's been slightly amended that ground um which makes it uh easier for mortgage lenders to to bring

it no longer have to have um it no longer has to the the mortgage no longer has to predate um and there doesn't need to be notice that it might be relied on.

Um then there's various others that relate to superior landlords and superior leases um which could could easily um crop up I think fairly regularly. Um I'm not going to go into all the deep the detail of that. It's something that you'll you'll

have to look up um as and when you you you come across it. Um but they all have four month notice periods. Now, these all require the prior notice by the landlord, but it's not a defense in in

respect of these ones to def to possession if it's not been if it's not been made. Next slide, please.

Um, ground three is gone. Um, that was the holidays uh ground. That one's now been repealed. Um, ground four um has been slightly amended. Um, that's relating to student accommodation. Um but this it's the student accommodation which is provided by um an educational

institution. Um I'm not going to go into the detail of that because I'm conscious of time but the text and detail of that is is there in the slide. Can we move to the next slide please?

Um the new ground 4a um is in relation to student occupation. Um and this is this is not limited to uh landlords that are institutional landlords. Um it's got a 4-month notice period. It has to relate to a house of multiple

occupations. So it's going to have to have at least three tenants who are part of more than one household sharing facilities.

um and the tenant is or the landlord reasonably believes that they will become a full-time student at the time when the teny is entered into. The landlord um has [clears throat] to intend to let the property to students

next time and the relevant date for the the notice needs to fall between the 1st of June and the 30th of September. Um this is the the idea of this ground is is clearly to ensure that where where a

landlord lets properties out on an annual basis to students that they're able to recover possession in order to carry on doing so. Um and yes, so the landlord in this case has to give prior notice that um they they intend to

recover possession on this basis and this is what this is an exception to the general rule in that failure to do so is a defense to possession. Um there are some exceptions in relation to um pre-commencement tenencies of

purpose-built student accommodation which again I'm not going to go into but it's something to look up. Uh next slide please.

Um there's a whole ream of uh grounds relating to kind of what I've I've called temp temporary occupants. Um these are either amended from existing ones or that they're entirely new. Um, we've got ministers of religion that's been amended. Um, agricultural workers

is a new ground available. Um, end of employment by landlord is an amended version of an old discretionary ground 16. Um, supported accommodation is new.

Um, and uh, yeah, the the the two supported accommodation ones are new. Um, teny granted for homelessness duty is new. I imagine we will see that um on a fairly regular basis. Um that that'll be one of the ones that crops up more

regularly I would have thought. Um and stepping stone accommodation again a new ground. Uh next slide please.

Um [snorts] there's a ground relating to when a property is required for redevelopment, which is an amended version of an existing um and a new ground that landlords can use when they require possession in order to comply with

various different requirements that are upon them, including banning orders, improvement notices, prohibition orders, licensing, and planning enforcement. And both of those grounds um have four months notice periods. Next slide, please.

Um death of the tenants been amended. Um this one is um it's a ten it's it's where a tenant teny vests by way of will or intestasy. So not successors under under the statute. Um, this can't be used against a tenant where they're

occupying as their only or principal home unless the tenant that died also inherited the teny um in and or it's one of a couple of special kinds of teny that are contained in the ground. Um, serious antisocial behavior underground

7A. Um, that's the same um but it's been amended just to basically remove the notice period. So now um a landlord can serve notice and immediately make a claim for possession. The possession order can't actually be made until 14

days after. Um but obviously the idea there being that that's going to be an accelerated version of of those kinds of proceedings.

Um right to rent hasn't been changed. Next next slide please. Um ground eight has been amended. um we've now got a four-week notice period and the level of aras um has been increased um both at the date of the

notice and and day of possession order to 13 weeks or 3 months. Um, and another helpful provision is that where the there's going to be a disregard for any sums of money that a person is entitled to receive as part of an award of

universal credit um, and that is unpaid only because the tenant has not yet received the payment of that award. Um, I think I know that there's been some argument about what what this might possibly mean. To me, it sounds as

though it's only going to apply to sums of money that are actually part of a universal credit award. Um, so not not where you've got a kind of broader dispute over entitlement, but that may be somewhere where there's we end up

having arguments over what exactly that that provision means. Next slide, please. Um, with the discretionary grounds, um, there's a there's a new ground in relation to un unreasonable refusal to cooperate with supported accommodation providers. Um that's the only uh new

ground under the discretionary um the discretionary section. There has been a change in the notice periods for grounds 10 and 11 to 4 weeks. Um and ground 14 like ground 7A 8 now has no notice period. Effectively you can just

bring possession proceedings straight away. Um next slide please. Um we've got a new section 8 notice um which will be again it's this won't apply to um uh tenencies that are subject to the transitional provisions but um for everyone else um it's called

it's it's a new form 3A. It no longer going to need to be updated by statutory instrument. It's just going to be published by the secretary of state and I've given you the link there to the current version. Um next slide please.

Right. So defenses. So the f the first I think we I' I've Nick's going to talk as you a bit more in detail about this, but I think the f the first thing to think about is whether the ground is available

at all and that that I'm harking back to whether or not um it's under the sort of old or new regime and whether there might be transitional protection that's um that's relevant or whether this might be a special kind of teny um that might

be um excluded. Um so that's the first thing to check. The next is then whether the ground is made out and again check the transitional provisions. Um in respect of that um notice periods. Um we've obviously got new notice periods and we we want to

be checking again that that's been brought in the prescribed period and it's it's gives enough notice. Um all of the grounds are capable of having notice dispensed with except 7 A 7B and 8.

[snorts] um failure to pro this this one's great. So failure to protect a teny deposit. Um those defenses that we're all used to from section 21 proceedings are now applicable to every ground except 7A and 14. Um, so you this is our time to to

get really good on our um technical tenency deposit um regime defenses and I Nick may want to mention that a little bit more as well when he talks to you about ways to defend these cases. Um at some point in the future when we get the

next stage of implementation in the landlord database comes, breaches of requirements in respect of that are also going to give rise to technical defenses to possession. Um but that's not quite available yet. Uh next slide please.

um rent increases um so rent increase terms in teny agreements are no longer of any effect. Um they can only be increased up to a maximum of once per year and it has to now be by section 13

notice. Um I've given you the forms there and the and the procedure and I know Nick's going to talk to you a little bit more about that. So I'll I'll leave it at there and we'll go to the

next slide. Um there is now a prohibition on charging rent in advance. I think again this is one I'm going to skip so that we can get to the homelessness provisions.

Um but I've given you some information there. Next next slide please and again um and I'm going to skip pets. I think you probably all know about pets already. Um and it's as much as um our clients are very interested in it I

think it's not going to be of of greatest relevance to us. Um, next slide.

Um, yes. So, landlords now have a new duty to provide a statement of terms um, in respect of assured tenencies. Now, this will apply to all new tenencies um, that commence after the 1st of May for which you have to provide them before

the teny um, is signed. Um, and existing tenencies where there's no agreement in writing in place already, well, it's wholly or partly in writing. Um so if it's an oral teny then the landlord has got up until the 31st of May to provide

a statement of reasons a statement of terms. Um uh the the detail of what has to go in that is long and it's in a schedule to um uh a set of regulations that I've cited in in the slides there.

Um they also need to provide a new information sheet um which is again um as a prescribed information sheet that um the current version I've given you a link to there. Next slide please.

Right. So this bit I think I'm going to I'm going to try and um do this quickly.

So basically there's there's there's a whole load of duties that landlords are now um uh under not just landlords but also um their their people that are acting on their behalf or purporting to act on their behalf. Um they're not

allowed to purport to let on a fixed term. They're not allowed to purport to end a teny by notice to quit. They're not allowed to purport to end a teny orally to serve a purported notice of possession or to rely on grounds of

possession without a reasonable belief in in obtaining an order. Um to s or to serve a notice on certain grounds where the statement of terms is not given. So that's what I was talking to you. Um no no sorry that's that's that's the

statement of terms we were talking about just a moment ago. Or to relet within the restricted um period. We'll talk about reletting in a minute. Um unfortunately um next slide please.

Um yeah. So essentially the way that the releting um restriction works, this is this is relevant to um grounds 1 and 1A.

Um the restricted period is 12 months. um it runs from the date uh from the service of a notice if a notice is served and it runs until 12 months after the date specified in notice as the earliest date on which possession

proceedings can be brought. So the whole period can be it will be over 12 months.

Um now if they don't serve a notice then it runs from the date when the claim is filed because it it that that basically catches the situation where a landlord um fails to give the appropriate notice and then brings a claim. Um it will end

earlier um than that if the court makes an order for possession on grounds other than grounds one and 1A. So if the if the landlord obtains a possession order on say ground 8 um then they won't from that date on there will be no proh

prohibition on releting. Next slide please. There are some exceptions to the prohibition on reletting which I'm going to skip over. We'll go to the next page.

Yeah. So the the the key thing to note here is that none of these are defenses to possession. So um these are going to be matters that are enforced by local authorities rather than tenants and their and their lawyers unfortunately.

Um there's a range of financial penalties that are imposed directly by local housing authorities. Um and they have there's sort of two levels of fine that they can apply. Um lower level ones that are up to 7K and um ones that they

can do in lie of criminal proceedings which is up to 40,000. Um and they can also um bring criminal prosecution for these offenses. Um I'm going to skip over a lot of the detail about that process just because I know we don't

have a lot of time but there is some detail in the slides about the the mechanisms for that that enforcement. Um next slide please.

Um and another can we can we go to the next slide? uh and more and again and again.

Yeah. Okay. So, this is the last part that I'm going to cover which is um the changes to homelessness duties under part seven of the 1996 act. Um, so the local authorities are no longer able to sanction deliberate and unreasonable

refusal to cooperate during the prevention and relief stages with the grant of a six rather than a 12-month A obviously because they won't be able to um be granting ASU um that's section 253 of the Renters Rights Act. um from the

1st of May. Um it's also no longer been relevant to whether um the main housing duty will arise. Um so that's good news. Um it it it can still um terminate the the prevention and relief duties though. uh the main

housing duty will no longer cease automatically upon acceptance of a non-assured a non-shorthold assured teny from a private landlord. Um but there will still be provisions in respect of final offers of accommodation. So if we go to the next slide

um final offers of accommodation can obviously no longer be assured short tenencies um which is good news. um the the definition of um the deemed threatened with homelessness provision has changed. So now um where you an applicant is in receipt of a section 8

notice and the date specified in there for the earliest date upon which um possession proceedings could be brought is within 56 days. that now meets the um threshold for deeming of threatened with homelessness under one section 1755 um of the 1996 act. Now there's a

there's some quite fiddly um stuff about how the commencement regulations have uh implemented the homelessness provisions in um section 25 of the renters's rights act. It's a little bit confusing. Um but what they've done is they've kind of

split those provisions over two separate parts of the commencement regulations. Um and the part that is in in respect of this [snorts] provision is under the section that's only in effect for private tenencies. Um, [snorts] and I think what they were trying to do with

that, um, is essentially mean that, uh, that you, if you, if you've got a section 8 notice from a social landlord, at the moment, you're not going to be deemed to be threatened with homelessness. And that's certainly what

the code of guidance is saying at paragraph um, 6.6. Um, why um, they they feel the need to make that distinction.

I can't say, but that that's what I think they're trying to achieve with that. Um the prevention duty also can't be ended um now after 56 days where there is still a valid section 28 notice so long as it's within 56 days or the 56

days has passed um and in respect of only accommodation available. So that's that's a provision that was um already there in terms of section 21 notices but it's been um amended now to include section 8. Uh next slide please.

Um right. So the the provision in section 195A of the 1996 act that um makes the special provision for reapplications after um two years of a private sector offer where um the priority need requirement is um disapplied.

um this has been repealed um but it is still going to be around for a little while longer because it does not apply to offers um of accommodation that were accepted before the 1st of May. Um, so I

assume that that's, you know, even if occupation was taken up slightly later, if you've actually accepted the offer of PRSO before the 1 of May, you're still going to have the right um to come back.

Um, even though that teny itself now um obviously is quite likely to have become an assured teny um if you get evicted and you're not intentionally homeless, um you're going to be able to still rely upon um section 195A. Um but other than

that scenario that that provision is now gone. Um a slight oddity uh is that there is a corresponding interim power um under section 1881A um where it appears where there's reason to believe that the criteria are met for the 195A

duty um which has actually been repealed already and there isn't a transitional provision. I think it's an oversight because the code of guidance still um has provision for um for for the 188 um 1A duty as though it still exists when

in fact it appears to me that it doesn't. Um I'm not quite sure how we would deal with that in practice. It may be a case of trying to do some something along the lines of getting a homelessness application up and running

well in advance of um the eviction date. although you're still going to run into problems with the fact that the relief duty has to take its course um before the main duty can um come into effect.

Um so that's that's a bit of an odd oddity um and I'm not quite sure yet what the best way of dealing with that is. Um next slide please.

Ah that's it. I'm done. So um now you get to uh have the delight of um Nick telling you about how he thinks um litigation under this act is going to is going to go in its early stages. Um

shall I hand over to you Nick? Brilliant. Thank you very much. Um seven years worth of legislation in 20 minutes. That's brilliant work. Um well the law's changed. Probably the culture and practice is going to take far longer

to change. And what we wanted to think through with you was some of the things we're likely to see in the early stages um as practice, particularly bad landlord practice fails to catch up and with what the new law is. Um but I'm

going to start with with grounds 101A with something new. Um it's always been completely obvious that landlords are going to try to abuse this ground uh these grounds. They've always tried to abuse similar grounds when they existed in the past under the rent act and the

government the first thing they did was recognize that this was going to happen and invented some rather inadequate systems for trying to address it. The renters reform coalition was advocating for all sorts of inventive policy measures. They wanted for example a

requirement of the ground that the landlord had to give an affidavit saying that they wanted to sell so that you might you know get get permitted for contempt more easily. They wanted the case to be to come back to court within

six months to see what the uh the status of the occupation was. None of these ideas were picked up on by the government. Uh and instead all the government is going to do all the acts does about landlords who change their

minds um is a beefed up rent uh RRO system uh rent repayment order system together with a system of criminality uh enforced by local authorities. These rely on ex-tenants bringing action against their ex- landlords and they rely on underfunded local authorities.

Can I have the next slide please? Thank you. So they're retrospective. We have to wonder how many tenants are going to take the trouble to go through the rent repayment audit system. The government likes to think tribunals are

straightforward. Anyone who's ever set foot in the tribunal knows that that's not true. And the other kind of the other prong is local authority enforcement. And we'll come on to that more broadly later. But everybody knows the local authorities are struggling. Uh

and some landlords might reasonably fear or not fear that the that the action is going to be taken against them. They might not find this a very um a very uh impressive system of disincentives. So there's this 12-month prohibited relet

period which mentioned she's also mentioned far more accurately than I can that it doesn't apply if the land if a possession order is made on other grounds. So there are various get out of jail free clauses and even where the

landlord does breach the pro prohibited period um you've got to wonder what action is going to be taken against them um if any. So how do we get around this?

Could I have the next slide please? Um this is something of a hobby horse of mine. What can we do to scare landlords?

What can we do to bring landlords back before the court when they have uh uh breached their clear evidence that they were going to relet or sell? Um what I've devised here is a sort of specimen order that if you're on duty, if you're

settling a case, you might want to hand up as an as a good idea to the judge.

And basically what it says is all right, fine possession, but what I want is a witness statement six months later saying what the occupation status of the property is. And if I'm not happy, I want to bring a damages claim under

section 12, which we'll come on to shortly. The other sort of sting in the tail is that the cost provision wouldn't take effect until the landlords um provided their witness statement. Um will it work? Angar, who's extremely knowledgeable and learned, thinks it

won't. I think it might. Who knows? We don't know until we've tried it. But what we're trying to do is to say to landlords and to the courts, we've got our eye on you. Um, you can have your

possession order through gritted teeth, but this is how we're going to come back and make sure that you're behaving yourself even despite the local authorities prosecution powers and even despite um the RRO powers. So, the plan is give me permission to bring a damages

claim if it turns out that the landlord is lying. Could I have the next slide, please?

This is what section 12 says. um it's been enforced more or less since the first world war and it says that where the landlord obtains possession on one of the grounds and it is subsequently ma made to appear to the court that the

order was obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. The court may order the landlords to pay the former tenants such sum as appears sufficient. Um so subsequently made to appear to the court. Inherently you need the possession order to have been made.

Uh the the section 12 only takes effect if the landlord has got a possession order. But what's really interesting about section 12 is made to appear to the court doesn't look like a terribly high threshold. It doesn't say the court

is satisfied. Uh it certainly doesn't say the court is satisfied to the criminal standard. It is made to appear to the court that that there was misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. Now, obviously, every landlord in their right mind who relets

a flat is going to say, "Well, something changed. My sale fell through or my niece couldn't move in or whatever it is." But it the court will have to look at that and the court will have to decide either on the civil standard or

possibly something lower that the landlord has misrepresentate has misrepresented or concealed relevant facts. And if that's made out, you've got your nice damages claim. Could I have the next slide, please?

We can see this working in practice under the old the precursors to section 12. So these are all rent act cases.

Thorne and Smith was similar to what we now have under ground one. And interestingly the tenant had been advised that there was no defense to ground one and a possession order had been agreed by consent. The landlord subsequently sold the entire building

for a vast profit and the tenant won at trial. I think that's really interesting because because it kind of lifts the veil on on why a possession order was made. Tenants said, "Well, I got advice." They said, "I I I was I was

stuck. I was stuffed." Uh and then that was unwound. That was that was um uh that was corrected. Um when it when when the landlord was shown to have lied, there was a cause of action. So that's really interesting that we can sort of

wave privilege in a way and say, "Well, it didn't appear that I had the defense.

It turns out that I do retrospectively." And then probably our best friend for these section 12 claims is is Clementine Simmons which is a um a rent case surprisingly recent. It was a protected teny but it was decided in 2002 and it

was similar facts. The tenant was persuaded to leave. They thought they had no defense and it was a a returning owner occupier type case. Um the building was then sold for a vast profit and the tenant was awarded £60,000.

adjusting for inflation and applying your simmons and castle uplift. £60,000 in 2002 is worth roughly £150,000 today.

Note of caution, I'm not promising all of your clients £150,000. I'm not promising them six figures because the tenant in that case had lost a controlled teny. what you would stand to lose today is an assured teny which

isn't nothing and an assured teny that's subject to the current market rent provisions under section sections 13 and 14. So it's a much less valuable claim than um than losing a rent control teny is but it's not nothing. We can look as

well at the illegal eviction authorities where where where where damages tend to be quite high. The courts seem to accept the general principle that um illegal eviction is a serious tort. Removing the home over someone's head wrongly is a

serious tor. And the courts have repeatedly said it is quite right in principle that damages for a legal eviction cases are high. And we can borrow that principle as if well even if this isn't a rent protected teny. I've

lost a valuable piece of property. I've lost a teny. It was a fully assured teny. My damages excuse me should [clears throat] be very very high. So that's the sort of figure where certainly if we start winning these

cases, we can be confident about CFAs. Provided that you're satisfied that the landlord is solvent and provided that you're satisfied that the landlord's not going to disappear, the damages ought to be high enough to justify thinking about CF

as a funding arrangement because heaven knows you're not going to get legal aid for this. But potentially it's quite exciting and even if a claim is never got off the ground, we need to be talking about this and we need to be

saying to landlords, we're watching you and landlords lawyers need to be advising them, look, if you put your name to a statement of truth that says, I'm going to sell or I'm going to move a family member in, you could face a

ruinous amount of damages. And that's how we change the culture, even if we never end up bringing a case. Could I have the next slide, please?

Renters disputes are really interesting because now that we don't have section 21, loads and loads and loads of landlords are going to be funneled into grounds 8, 10, and 11. Um, those who don't want to take the chance at saying they're going

to sell. Those who don't want to take the chance at saying I'm going to move in and tenants will get into aras. God bless them. We know that about them.

Tenants will get into aras. So, loads and loads of landlords are going to be serving section 8 notices. And what they're going to find when these matters are litigated is that very very bad practice has grown up over the years

where we don't use section 13 uh we either issue new tenencies which would be an effective way of raising the rent or there would be an informal agreement. Now, the reason this is potentially a problem for us is because

section 13, your rent increase notice provision specifically says nothing in this section or 13 or section 14 affects the right of the landlord and the tenant to vary by agreement any term of the teny including any term as to rent. So, what

landlords are going to be saying in these rent cases is fine, there's no section 13 notice, but we agreed. I asked for a higher rent, the tenant said fine. So, what we've got to think about is what is the legal consequence of that

kind of arrangement where there's no section 13 notice, where there's been a an informal uh uh gentleman's agreement between landlord and tenant, particularly where the tenant has actually started paying the higher rent.

What does that mean in law? Can I have the next slide, please? Now, tenies are weird. They're not they're not normal contracts. They're not like your phone contract. They're not like your uh whatever else it is.

They're they're they exist in landlaw and they exist in statute and they're quite hard to just vary by agreement because of that kind of overlay. So if a landlord says well I asked for a higher rent and the tenant started paying or

even the tenant said yes, what is the legal consequence of that as a matter of contract law and as a matter of landlaw?

It's not easy to say there's been a unilateral increase in price as Angarod says that that the the contractual provision for rent and greeters don't work anymore. So what they've got to argue is there's been a unil or there's

been agreed variation of the price of the contract. But there's no consideration for that. Even pre this idea might have worked because the landlord could have said well I'll section 21 you if you don't agree to a higher rent I would have that right. But

if the tenant has acred no new rights and has simply just got to pay more, then you've got to wonder what the consideration is and and whether that would take effect as a valid variation of the contract. But more importantly,

there's landlord because rent is so important as a as an aspect of a lease that you can't really have such a thing as a unilateral variation of rent. And there's authority there from 1988 that that a unilateral variation in rent is

inconsistent with the very nature of a teny. It just doesn't work. Indeed, that's why we have to have the section 13 procedure. If you if there's no consideration for a rent increase and if you destroy a teny by claiming that the

rent has gone up, there's no way to raise the rent unless there is a statutory mechanism. So, this is precisely why we have section 13. That's why it's there. Could I have the next slide please?

What does it mean if your tenant started paying you rent? There's three things. There's three legal ways in which we can understand that. The first is implied surrender and regrant. And those of you who remember those deposit churn cases

will will be familiar with this that every time the deposit changed hands, there was taken to be an implied surrender and regrant. That's less likely to happen under the ren renters's rights act particularly because in a rent in a a re dispute the landlord

would have pleaded the teny and they're very likely to have pleaded the original teny start date. So, they're going to be stuck with their pleading, which is this is an old tenency. If that's the case, there can't have been an implied

surrender and regrant on the landlord's own case. So, you're going to be saying that didn't happen. There was no surrender. If there was a surrender, you need to really, really clearly evidence that if there wasn't a surrender, if the

original teny is still intact, well, the courts have said it's not impossible to agree an additional sum, but that's what's called a parole agreement. So, it's an entirely separate contractual agreement that runs in parallel to the teny agreement, which is fine because if

it's a parole agreement, that's not true rent. That's not, as the lawyers say, capable of levying distress. You can't use ground to rely on that. So, we can use these frightening phrases and ancient aspects of landlord to to annoy

our opponents and argue that if there is a lawful supplemental payment that is irrelevant to ground A, you can't evict me on that. I'm going to have the next slide please.

And the third agreed, the third possibility is that there's just no agreement. The the rent was never lawfully varied. Absent a section 13 notice, absent a surrender and regrant, there has never been a lawful rent increase. So not only are there no AR,

I'm afraid, but in fact, I might have overpaid. So council claim for restitution, please may I have whatever I paid you in excess of the original agreed rent. Um these are the kinds of problems that landlords, particularly bad landlords and bad letings agents are

going to find themselves in um in the next few years. Um could I have the next slide please?

Housing conditions. Again, I think landlords are going to walk into a trap here because those who aren't brave enough to argue section 101A are just going to serve section 8 notices on ground 8. And there are millions and

millions and millions of defective homes out there. We think roughly 20% of the private rented sector is hazardous. And you might also think that it's precisely those kind of bottom end tenencies where tenants are more likely to get into a

rears. So loads and loads and loads of section 8 notices are going to be met with uh counter claims. And what's exciting about that is that particularly letting agent practices still haven't caught up with the fitness provisions.

So I'm going to whiz over the fitness provisions just to remind us all of what we're looking at. If I could have the next slide, please.

um we're looking for hazards. We're not look we're not looking for disrepair. We kind of don't even need surveyors reports anymore because we're not so much concerned with the cause of what's gone wrong with we're concerned with whe

whether it is a hazard. And what a hazard means is is it is it defined in the HHSRS list which you'll have to um go back and read. And does the hazard mean the property is not capable of

occupation without undue inconvenience and distress. That's a pretty low threshold. Um, so all sorts of residential premises are going to be subject to hazards and uh we've got some potentially good um counter claims on our hand. And what I'm finding in the in

the rare housing conditions counter claims that I do in the private sector is that lifestyle defenses are rife particularly in terms of dampen mold claims. Now dampen mold is a hazard.

It's specifically in the regulations. it tends to mean not capable of occupation without undue inconvenience and distress. So you're likely to have a defect there unless there's a defense.

So the question is is lifestyle a defense and in in answer to that there is specific guidance relevant to the public to the private rented sector which I've quoted if I can have it on the next slide please.

This is great. This is the government. We are absolutely clear that it is totally unreasonable to blame damp and mold in the home on lifestyle choices.

The fundamental cause of damp and mold will be building deficiencies, inadequate ventilation, inadequate heating or poor energy efficiency, but not tenants normal domestic activities.

So whenever you're litigating this, you're going to be sending the landlord solicitors this really helpful PRS guidance that says, "I'm sorry, lifestyle is a dead letter. You can't argue this anymore. doesn't part particularly matter that um the tenant

was having a shower. If you're letting out a property that you can't shower in without causing mold, that's where the problem is. This is subject to what the um uh fitness provisions themselves say, which is where it's wholly or mainly

attributable to the tenant. You don't win. But those cases will be quite rare. You need to be sort of running a sauna um in order to in order for the for that sort of defense to work given what the

government guidance so clearly says. Could I have the next slide please? The reason this is exciting is that damages can be very high. Uh some very fine lawyers have been working on this principle that uh that fitness claims

can be worth up to 100% of the rent. And we've got three county court decisions to that effect. Now, two of them are both reported in that same edition of legal action um February 2024. Godama and Hansen is online which I've

misspelled which is great because it's my own case. And then there's Collins and Hopkins which is an old hundredy old case more or less to the same effect that um a breach of the fitness provision is a repudiatory breach. Uh

it's a serious breach and you can claim severe damages for it. So um landlords are are are wing into all sorts of difficulties the minute they start serving ground eight notices or 10 11 notices particularly at the bottom end

of the private rented sector. Partly because letting agents practices are so bad. Letings agencies are not keeping good records. They're not getting things sorted. They blame it on the landlord.

The landlord blames it on them. These are good and lucrative defenses and I think we're going to start seeing a lot more of them. Can I then move on to the next slide and talk about the enforcement duty on local authorities.

There is for the first time ever a new general duty of enforcement. We know from experience that um practice is highly variable between local authorities as to who prosecutes, who serves notices, who does anything at all. And anyone who's ever tried to run

a an old-fashioned um revenge eviction deface uh defense will know that getting a local authority to serve a relevant notice is like blood from a stone. Um and what we have now is a statutory duty to uh enforce landlord legislation in

its area which is great. It's really exciting. What does it mean in practice? Uh uh could I have the next slide please?

Because the big question is your tenants come to you with a broken tap says I've reported it to the council. The council's not done anything. Are they now under a legal duty to serve a hazard awareness notice? ramp that up to

another form of enforcement notice and prosecution um every time there's a broken tap in every PRS residence. Is that what the general duty means?

Certainly, that's what's keeping local authority finance officers awake at night. Probably not. It's a general duty. It's a target duty. There's also statutory guidance which says you are allowed to take informal action first.

You can ring the landlord up. You can send them a letter. You've got to have a policy that says what your um steps are and probably most sensible local authorities will have a triage system.

But it would be a very brave person who ran a a JR that said the local authority has failed to serve a hazard awareness notice or prosecute or whatever it is.

This is a breach of their duty. What you'll want is a much much more structural level of evidence um evidence of structural failings. Uh we know that we know from the helpful Imam decision in the homelessness case that when

parliament imposes a statutory duty, it is to be assumed that the local authority has the resources to comply.

So they can't really run a resources argument. But to get your case off the ground, you probably need to show a sort of more systemic failure to take uh enforcement actions. But we can expect to see these challenges. We can

certainly expect to see requests for disclosure of how many enforcement actions have been taken versus how many complaints have been made. And if I could trouble you all please to start requesting copies of the policy, the enforcement policy which local

authorities are now probably required to have um under the statutory guidance. Can I then move on to the next um slide and the last issue to look at before we move on to questions? By all means, put your questions in the Q&A box. We've got

a couple coming in, but we're happy to take more. um 55.82 the threshold remains the same. Is the claim genuinely disputed on grounds that appear appear to be substantial? And of course the lovely thing about being a lawyer with a brand new law is that

there is no law on many of the new grounds yet. So we don't know what the issues are. We don't know what the courts are going to decide. Uh and it may well be easier to cross that threshold where you can say to a judge,

well there's absolutely no law on this. We don't yet know what the answer is.

So, I'm particularly interested in the evidential requirements under grounds 1 and 1A. What evidence is good enough to satisfy the court that 1A and one are made out? Um, is it enough to just say, "Well, I'm thinking about it." Do they

need an estate agent's letter? Do they need a witness statement from the person who's proposed to move in? Um certainly with intention to sell, I think there's going to be an awful lot of interesting early cases about what the court needs

to look at at a summary hearing to be satisfied um that the landlord wants to sell. Obviously, you've got all the deposit um defenses which are great in which luckily are quite well settled now. Um but you're going to be arguing

those. And then I think the thing that I'm really interested in and nervous about is property guardianship because it seems to me to be a very inventive route for getting around the renters's rights act entirely. If you say, "Well,

I've got this nice property. Of course, I don't have tenants in it. Uh they are property guardians. They're looking after it for me for a certain period." Um anecdotally, on my street, there's a small Victorian house that's got

property guardian signs up. And my guess is that landlords will use this more and more as an attempt to bypass the provisions of the renters's rights act uh entirely. The difficulty is that the labor itself, the key case on the

threshold for defending uh defending possession proceedings was a guardianship case in which it was held to be unarguable for the tenants to say that they were for the occupiers to say that they were tenants. Um, so landlords might try and

capitalize on that and say you can't even raise an argument. Um, even if it's residential premises. Having said all of that, can I please have the next and I think the last slide.

Um, our best friends are the old 30-year-old cases, 40-year-old cases. Antonidis and Villas was one of the cases decided at the same time as a securities in Bourne, which you'll probably be familiar with in the House of Lords. And what the House of Lords

said in that case was that residential premises which is inherently suitable only for single occupation is very likely to give rise to a teny.

So if you've got a purpose-built flat, particularly if it's a small purpose-built flat and particularly if there's only one household living in it, you're very very likely to be a tenant regardless of what the agreement says.

Similarly in Duke and Win um sorry in in Antonidis by the way uh there was a couple sharing a bed in a in a in a in a bedroom and the agreement says as guardianship agreements often do the

landlord reserves the right to move other people in and the question is well where is he going to put them is is it going to be like a sort of Charlie in the chocolate factory situation and where you've got tenants that have these

obviously ridiculous clauses that say we can move other people in you're going to want to to point to these old House of Lords cases and say this is a nonsense is clearly binding that it's a nonsense.

because the house of lords says so. Duke and whim similarly um occupation of a whole house is likely to amount to a teny agreement. In that case it was a young family under occupying a whole house but because it was one household

because it was a house and not as guardianships are supposed to be disused commercial premises um again court of appeal says well that's going to be a teny isn't it? And then similarly, Family Housing Association and Jones self-contained flat very very like

likely to create a teny. So I'm worried about this drift. I'm worried about landlords trying to say, "Well, this isn't a renters's rights actual tenency because I've got guardians in there and I've got the labor in my favor." We're

going to clap back at them and say, "Ah, but the old House of Lords Court of Appeal Authorities say residential premises, you're really in trouble with that." This is being litigated at the moment. In July um there's a county

court appeal a garden VPS which is about um a residential ex councsil tower block which ostensibly is filled up with property guardians and again it's an arguability point and the county court circuit judge will have to look at is it

arguable to say that residential premises occupied under a guardianship agreement are in fact teny. So it's all exciting lots to play for. Um these are just some uh humble suggestions about the ideas that are likely to come up.

you're bound to have others and Karen must be the only person in the world who's read all the transitional provisions. So if you've got any transitional provisions cases by all means send them to her. Um and apart from that we're very very happy to take

questions. If we could perhaps stop sharing the slides for the minute um you can see us better as we think about your difficult questions.

Yes, thank you uh both Nick and and Harod [clears throat] for that excellent exist of some pretty uh voluminous and complicated provisions. Um so I'd like to start with uh a question uh which is about the rent increase

provisions um which is something that uh I think you talked about a bit Nick. Um the question is effectively can the rent still be increased by sort of issuing a new tenency signed by tenant and landlord. So going back to

original principles for the I think I think it means in for the purposes of the eventually the possession claim perhaps but obviously the wider question is something you've addressed Nick if you [clears throat] could help us with that.

Yeah I think the answer is sadly yes it a new teny agreement is very very likely to be treated as a surrender and regrant. There's authority on that to do with for example succession cases um where a new teny was given and therefore

it was a first succession rather than a second. Um but but yes, if if someone signs a new tenency agreement at a higher rent, then very very likely that's taken to be a surrender and refund. The good news of that is

possibly that any older aras might not pertain to that tenency agreement depending on how they're allocated. But the bad news is yes, that will probably count. So we're going to be saying to our clients, do not sign anything until

you've had legal advice. Um you're safe, you're a tenant, don't don't put up with any nonsense from the landlord.

And Harry, anything to add to that or you have to leave either? Uh no. Um, but I I I can see there's some other questions in there that I can I can answer.

I was going to say um I think probably the one I' I'd direct to you if I get to choose is about the uh the question about service of the RRA information sheet on tenants.

Yeah. Um [clears throat] when a tenant has been served a section 21 notice which is due to expire after the end of May. My uh transitional provisions spider sense is tingling. It might be might be part of the answer.

issue. So that that might be helpful to solve. Yeah. So the the question is basically is is failure to serve the new information sheet relevant to um the validity of I think of an existing section 21 notice. Um so basically you

need to think of these two things as two totally different regimes. So on the one hand, we've got the old regime with section 21 which has all of the old defenses um which we we know well. Um and then on the new side of things,

we've got this new regime which includes the requirement to serve this information sheet. Um, so if you've got a situation where a section 21 notice has been served before the end of May and the landlord is seeking to rely on

that, the question is going to be whether that section 21 notice is valid in terms of the old law, the new whether or not the landlord has since served the in fact if if the landlord's right that that section 21 notice is valid, then

the requirement to serve the information sheet won't even have bitten because it'll still be part of um the transitional cohort of um tenencies which are still an assured shorthole teny and not subject to any of the new provisions. Um so the question is just

going to be whether that section 21 notice is valid or not. Um if the landlord wants to rely on that. Um and if they if they don't unfortunately the failure to serve the information sheet isn't a defense anyway to any of the new

grounds of possession. [snorts] Yeah. Okay. Um, [clears throat] we've got a a question that's more simply uh phrased. What of Rent Act protected tenencies?

Either of you really? Um, they're not subject to this. So, a rent teny is still its own thing. um the the the kind of really complicated stuff is where you've got um assured tenencies by succession to rent tenencies because they have all of their

own kind of provisions. Um and that's that's the sort of situation to look out for. But in terms of rent tenencies, it's still the same as it has been up till now. Um they've got their own regime.

Um this this question is sort of more of a a strategic question from the landlord's perspective.

If the prohibition period for grounds 1 and 1A are 12 months, what is stopping a landlord from serving a notice but not issuing a claim until 11 and 1/2 months later, thus benefiting from basically 12 months of rent before getting an order

being able to relet almost immediately with a high time rent. I don't mind nothing I think is the answer unfortunately. Um, am I right on that, Nick?

Yeah. I mean, this is exactly why there was so much lobbying about sensible ways of preventing landlords from from misbehaving. But, you know, landlords are going to misbehave unless you really really stop them.

Yeah, this is one I found interesting because I also practice in employment and I was interested by the statement of terms provisions because it's uh it's similar to the employment contract having a statutory regime where key terms are required to be identified. The

question is does the requirement to provide a statement of terms allow local authorities to take enforcement action on sham agreements? So sham lodger agreements, sham guardianship agreements and similar.

Can I I'm sorry. Can I go back to the previous question quickly? Um the question about uh 11 and a half months and what's stopping a landlord. Don't forget that everything normal about civil procedure in terms of contempt still applies. So for reasons I

can't begin to remember. I was reading a very interesting court of appeal judgment this week about contempt proceedings. It's still possible to refer to the attorney general. It's still possible for an individual party to litigation to bring contempt

proceedings. And if you've got a landlord very very obviously taking the mick like that, issuing a claim with a statement of truth just before the expiry of the prohibited period and then immediately releting, you might want to think about whether committal is an

appropriate route. Uh and that means I've immediately forgotten what the next question was. I'm sorry.

That's all right. I can I can it's um does the requirement to provide a statement of terms allow local authorities to take enforcement action on sham agreements and the examples given are sham lodger agreements or sham guardianship agreements.

Well, I was thinking about this as well because the trouble is in principle, yes, but the trouble is a lot of these will be criminal offenses and uh the new regime entitles local authorities to fine or to prosecute and there's a sort

of vague encouragement that they fine, but they can only fine if they're satisfied to the criminal standard that the offense has made out. Now, how can they be satisfied to the criminal standard that it's a sham agreement? How

can they be satisfied given what LA says about the difficulty of arguing this point that the landlord is committing an offense? So in principle, yes, but in practice, I think landlord local authorities are going to be really cautious and rightly cautious about

whether the offense is made out. I mean, also it doesn't apply. I mean, if if what they're saying is this isn't an assured tenency, it's a it's a it's a guardianship arrangement, then there will be no requirement, if they're

right about that, to provide a statement of terms, will there? Yeah, I think that the question was premised on the idea that a local authority could rely on not the landlord's assertion but the actual legal reality. And I think Nick's point

is the the challenge with that is you don't have to be satisfied to the criminal standard or the court have to sim to criminal standard. So yeah, it does sound like a a tricky one. Is it tantalizing idea as it might seem? Um,

we've got another [clears throat] question um about rent increases. Uh, where a teny had a reasonably low rent increase clause that no longer applies, the landlord is obviously going to aim for a higher unilateral increase.

Is there anything the tenant can use to fall back on to the previous rent clause apart from seeking agreement from the landlord to a lower increase? And I've got a follow-up question if if the answer is anything like I know.

Um, Nick, you were dealing with rent increases before. You happy to start with this one?

Yeah, I mean, the point is that it's it's got to be the open market rent and and a pre a previously valid term might give the tribunal some indication of what an open market rent is, but it won't be the best evidence. The best

evidence will be rents in the surrounding property. So, you're looking at negotiating with the landlords to the lowest possible amount. Failing that, you're going to be waving that clause at the tribunal, but ultimately they're going to be looking at what surrounding

rents are. Any thoughts on Harry before I ask my No, I agree. I agree.

What about guys an argument that there's a pro promisary stopple in relation to the the higher rent because the landlords given the indication they're not going to rely on their strict rights.

Just a thought. It's a really good point. If I were a landlord, which I'm not, I would say that the renters's rights act interfered with the value of my profitable tenency agreement in the tenants favor. And if it interferes with it in my favor as

well by allowing me to ask for a higher rent increase, then I've got to take I've got to take the rough with the smoke. But, you know, it's a matter with the court of appeal really, isn't it?

Um then we got a question about again it's similar to the the waiting the 11 months to bring a claim. If a landlord waits 11 months to bring a claim then he should have really good evidence of steps he

has taken. Right. Well, I mean, I think the problem with that is that um both the the idea of both ground one and 1A is that you need to get the tenant out in order to take the step that you want to take, either

moving in your relative or um selling the property, right? So, they might come around and say, "Well, until until the person's moved out, we're not ready to market it or you know, we can't we can't move in until they're gone." I think

that's the difficulty we're going to have with these two claims. Nick, anything to add or do you think that captures it?

I think that's right. Okay. Um, [clears throat] so here we have a quite a specific one.

Section 16E subsection 1 paragraph F of the housing act 1988 states that a relevant person i.e. handle must not in relation to an assured teny where the teny is one to which section 16D applies rely on one or

more of grounds and then it lists a number of grounds if no statement was given to the tenant under section section 16D in respect of them. Government guidance suggests this does not in fact preclude the landlord from relying on a notice relying on one

of these grounds, but this section does appear to say that the landlord may not rely on a ground in the first place.

Yeah, I'm so sorry, but unfortunately there's another provision somewhere else that basically says that there's it's so devilishly complicated this legislation.

Um because it does look like it says that, doesn't it? Unfortunately, there is another provision that um says that um that doesn't preclude the obtaining of possession. All it does is create what? A duty which is enforcable by the

local authority through fines. That's all it does, unfortunately. um someone and they have our sympathy has entered not quite as a question that the the renters's rights act is awful to read perhaps in sympathy with you and Harold um and I think that's fair and

I'm just reviewing I think we've answered everything that's come up so now would be the time if anyone has any outstanding questions I think there's one in the um about section 135 um that's been repealed. Um so just just the question was

essentially just um whether um section 135 permits variation of rent by agreement, but that's part of the um that's part of the 88 act that's been repealed by the Renters Rights Act.

Yeah. Okay. So, I'll I'll give you another uh minute or two to [clears throat] have any any more questions.

Is that another one there? Someone just said thank you. Oh, yeah, there is one. Beg your pardon. So, the question is, do the obligations under the guidance, not specifically in the RA, still apply to a teny currently subject to a section 21? It says

application, but I think it must be in claim. I the service of the information sheet. I think that Yeah, I think we've we've touched on that slightly before and I think Harry, this might be your thing about the two different regimes.

It I think it doesn't. Yeah. And a new question, how would you differentiate between a property guardianship and an assured tenency based on the facts of the matter?

[clears throat] Um well Nick is yeah I mean the question is do you do you ever get to argue the facts of the matter because the labor was all about arguability and um we we we never got to have a trial was

the problem. Uh it may well be that the factual reality was completely at odds with what was on the tenant was on the written agreement. Um but we never got there. So, uh, uh, what you're looking out for is exclusive occupation,

basically. Um, you're you're looking at who was in control. Did the landlord have a key? Did the landlord provide any services? Could the tenant lock the door against everyone else? Is it self-contained premises? All sorts of things that look more like a living

arrangement than a sort of security guard arrangement. And the closer you get to that, um, the more likely it is you're you're going to be able to establish your teny. But the the big hurdle is do you ever get to have a

trial on that point or does the labor um stop us from getting that far?

Um, [clears throat] I think we we've just had another one come up this. So, if the question is if there's a 2-year tenency that started last year, and it says that notice cannot be served by the parties until

the first year has passed, perhaps a bit like a break clause, for example, um, can a section 21 be served?

Um, no. If if if if it's not been served before, if there's been neither a section 8 nor a section 21 notice served prior to the to to the 1st of May, then a section 21 notice can't be served now.

It um only the only ones where it can are the ones that are falling within the transitional provisions because otherwise it will have it will have turned into an assured teny.

All right. Well, I think that um that brings to a brings to an end our questions. Obviously, we we all have many more questions, I'm sure, in our heads about uh the complex and and and pretty um uh fundamental changes a foot.

But it sounds like um these guys might well be the the the um people to watch in terms of um case work going forward and obviously we'd be interested to hear from you um coming out of this seminar

sorry this webinar um what you're seeing on the ground that's always one of the most interesting things for us when we engage with this work. Um so on that note um it just remains for me to thank you all again so much for joining us.

It's been a really interesting evening. [clears throat] Um and we hope to see you again. Um keep an eye out for our our um our other uh webinars and events. Um and again, thank you so much to our excellent speakers um

and for all of my colleagues for all of you for making this evening possible.

Thanks very much.