Section 8 served to my tenants during lockdown - will it get thrown out?

greatcrested

AdrianC said:

So get a GSC before you issue the s21...

Will only help if there was a valid gas report on the date the tenancy started.

Once you've eventually resolved this tenancy, I suggest you either sell the property or go on a landlords training course......

https://www.nrla.org.uk/training-academy?ref=hpbox

newsgroupmonkey_

Did that not change in July?

https://www.londonpropertylicensing.co.uk/court-appeal-rules-law-gas-safety-certificates-and-section-21-notices

greatcrested

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Did that not change in July?

https://www.londonpropertylicensing.co.uk/court-appeal-rules-law-gas-safety-certificates-and-section-21-notices

To some extent yes.

If there WAS a gas report at the start, but the LL failed to provide that report to the T in the required timeframe, then the previous invalidaion of a subsequent S21 is changed. A LL can now still serve a valid S21 providing there is now an up to date report.

But if there never was a gas report at the start, a valid S21 can still not be served. Your link explains:

The Court of Appeal’s decision will be welcomed by the many responsible landlords who carry out gas safety checks but have been fearful that administrative oversights and errors in providing the GSR to tenants could leave them permanently barred from using the s.21 procedure.

The Court’s decision, however, is not a cure for all the difficult issues that have emerged since the law was changed in 2015. The decision leaves a number of questions unanswered most notably what if a landlord did not carry out a gas safety check at all before the tenant went into occupation. Can this be remedied late, and, if so, how? This issue wasn’t dealt with in the appeal because the landlord had carried out a check before the tenant went into occupation.

newsgroupmonkey_

Thank you That makes perfect sense.

However, this appears then to be like the removal of an AST effectively. So long as the tenant continues to pay rent, they can never be removed from the house. I'm not sure that's why the law was brought in.

AdrianC

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

However, this appears then to be like the removal of an AST effectively. So long as the tenant continues to pay rent, they can never be removed from the house. I'm not sure that's why the law was brought in.

Only if the landlord has been breaking the law.

newsgroupmonkey_

AdrianC said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

However, this appears then to be like the removal of an AST effectively. So long as the tenant continues to pay rent, they can never be removed from the house. I'm not sure that's why the law was brought in.

Only if the landlord has been breaking the law.

I get that the LL has broken the law and there should be things in place for that. But effectively stopping them selling the house "forever" isn't exactly a fair punishment for the crime. Arguably, it should be the opposite - if they're a terrible landlord, they should be forced to sel the property.

You and others remind everyone who comes onto this forum who is contemplating letting property that "it's a business, it should be taken seriously and if you're not prepared to keep up with regulations, then you shouldn't become a landlord" and "No such thing as an accidental landlord. If you can't do it, sell it!"

So we have a landlord who is probably ignorant of what needs doing. Maybe they've realised that they don't want to be a landlord. However, under this scenario, they have no choice, whether they want to be or not. I mean if the OP is saying "You know what? I'm not cut out to be a landlord", this law effectively says "Tough. You chose to be one. Now you have no choice."

And yes, I'm aware they could sell with tenant in situ, but who is going to buy a house that potentially they could never, ever evict the tenant?

leypt1

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

AdrianC said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

However, this appears then to be like the removal of an AST effectively. So long as the tenant continues to pay rent, they can never be removed from the house. I'm not sure that's why the law was brought in.

Only if the landlord has been breaking the law.

I get that the LL has broken the law and there should be things in place for that. But effectively stopping them selling the house "forever" isn't exactly a fair punishment for the crime. Arguably, it should be the opposite - if they're a terrible landlord, they should be forced to sel the property.

You and others remind everyone who comes onto this forum who is contemplating letting property that "it's a business, it should be taken seriously and if you're not prepared to keep up with regulations, then you shouldn't become a landlord" and "No such thing as an accidental landlord. If you can't do it, sell it!"

So we have a landlord who is probably ignorant of what needs doing. Maybe they've realised that they don't want to be a landlord. However, under this scenario, they have no choice, whether they want to be or not. I mean if the OP is saying "You know what? I'm not cut out to be a landlord", this law effectively says "Tough. You chose to be one. Now you have no choice."

And yes, I'm aware they could sell with tenant in situ, but who is going to buy a house that potentially they could never, ever evict the tenant?

They could evict using a section 8 if a relevant ground applied, jeez. The point is that the tenant shouldn't be punished (with homelessness!) for their landlord's failures, and anyone buying the house off the current landlord would just need to make sure they followed the steps needed at the start of a tenancy for a S21 to be valid.

moneysavinghero

They would always have the option of offering the tenant a sweetener to vacate to property of their own free will. Considering they were happy to play fast and loose with the tenants safety, this seems fair and like a quasi-compensation.

Paddy7342

Another shocking landlord who thinks he's above rules giving others a bad name. 

greatcrested

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Thank you That makes perfect sense.

However, this appears then to be like the removal of an AST effectively. So long as the tenant continues to pay rent, they can never be removed from the house. I'm not sure that's why the law was brought in.

I agree. I don't believe this was the intention of the law (though I might be wrong) I believe it is just poorly drafted leglislation.

Compare the introduction of deposit leglislation in the Housing Act 2004. It had to be amended first by the Localism Act 2011, and then again by the Deregulation Act 2015 before they got it right!