Tenant refusing to pay rent

gazfocus

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81912096#Comment_81912096

To be fair, I can kind of see why monkey-fingers is getting it wrong as the wording COULD be read to suggest that as long as the landlord has provided two correct gas safety certificates, that should be enough to meet the legal requirements. In fact, the judge goes on to say "it would be unfair to punish a landlord forever for a small mistake made years earlier'. That argument could be made for there being no gas safety cert at the start of the tenancy (i.e. is it really reasonable for a landlord to not be able to gain possession of their own property for an error that happened years earlier). HOWEVER, as you say, in the context of the whole case, it's clear that the judge isn't talking about where there was no certificate given initially hence it's often quoted by shelter as a grey area.

In fact, on the Shelter Section 21 checklist, it actually asks if a valid gas safety cert has been given to the tenant prior to the issue of the Section 21.

As you say though, I completely 100% agree that if a judge is likely to void a Section 21 because a landlord hasn't issued the gas safety certificate at the start of the tenancy, paying £750 for an 'eviction specialist' is not going to magically make the judge change his/her mind so in my view a complete waste of money.

silvercar

As you say though, I completely 100% agree that if a judge is likely to void a Section 21 because a landlord hasn't issued the gas safety certificate at the start of the tenancy, paying £750 for an 'eviction specialist' is not going to magically make the judge change his/her mind so in my view a complete waste of money.

It may convince a tenant that an expert is handling the case so the chances of speedy eviction are higher.

_Penny_Dreadful

Thanks @gazfocus.

Just to wrap this up, because the distinction really does matter here:

The appeal in Cassell v Sidhu (HHJ Clarke, 9 Oct 2025) dealt with a tenancy where the initial gas safety certificate did exist, but contained a small error. Clarke found the S21 valid but by that point the tenants had already vacated, so the ruling was largely academic for the parties involved.

Since the appeal case there have been subsequent rulings that deal directly with the non-existent GSC.

Murphy v Maguire (HHJ Murch, 28 Nov 2025): the S21 was dismissed because the landlord failed to carry out a gas safety inspection before the tenancy began, which Murch held was an irremediable breach citing HHJ Bloom's 2022 ruling in Byrne vs Delgado, a case in which the S21 was dismissed due to the lack of a GSC at the start of the tenancy. HHJ Murch explicity noted that Cassell vs Sidhu was distinguishable because in that case there was a GSC at the start of the tenancy albeit with missing information.

On the separate point raised about using an “eviction specialist” and the idea that a tenant will somehow be intimidated into leaving faster because someone “official‑looking” sends the notice doesn’t hold up in practice.
Across landlord forums you’ll find examples of people who paid these companies and were then left stranded once the case turned out not to be completely vanilla. Furthermore, in some instances, the “specialist” is neither a solicitor nor a barrister, meaning they cannot represent the landlord in court, resulting in the landlord paying the specialist and paying for actual legal representation afterwards.

A bit like with letting agents, anyone can call themselves and eviction specialist. Maybe I'll start a side hustle and charge £500.

kate4doom

I once had a tenant who stopped paying rent. Stopped responding to calls/emails/letters, didnt answer the door when I called in person. I tracked down his mum on linkedin and called her at her work to let her know I was concerned that she should be aware of what a !!!!!! her son was being. Arrears cleared within a day.