Does a recent court case set a precedent for landlords
Does a recent court case set a precedent for any landlords thinking of using a section 21 notice to remove a tenant? Could this ruling have a major impact on all landlords?
We have discussed the possible ramifications of the Deregulation Act 2015, now with this court ruling we can see how the Act impacts on landlords and tenants, with huge potential for rogue tenants to try to take advantage.
A recent County Court ruled that a landlord who had failed to issue a gas safety certificate to an assured shorthold tenant prior to moving in could never rely on a Section 21 Notice as a means of ending the tenancy and recovering possession. Adhering to a strict interpretation of the Act meant that as the Landlord had issued the gas certificate after the tenancy had begun, they had failed to meet the requirements of the act, therefor unable to evict a tenant with a section 21 notice.
It seems the issue is with the type of tenancy, landlords should be granting assured shorthold tenancies and not granting assured tenancies. It appears from various lobbying parties that the Government refuses to allow landlords to change and now leave landlords potentially open to major headaches should a tenant contest any section 21 under the deregulation act.
I am not sure if it is a case of the government not understanding the implications or not caring about the impact on both landlords and tenants. They appear to want to wash their hands of any matters to do with the lettings industry and refuse to take any blame for the increase in rents due to all the legislation.
I have recently checked the governments own website on the deregulation act and it could be easy to misunderstand the differences between the tenancies and how the act impacts upon them.
We are getting more and more calls from long standing landlord clients who thought they had complied with the act and are now facing a variety of penalties for what can only be described as an administration error due to misunderstanding and not a deliberate undertaking to defy the act.
I would love to hear your ideas and solutions to this issue.