Painsmith Landlord and Tenant Blog

A practitioners landlord and tenant law blog from PainSmith Solicitors

New How to Rent: the Checklist

Just a reminder to all our readers that as of today the How to Rent: checklist for renting in England has again been updated.  Make sure you are giving the most up to date version!

Filed under: England & Wales

Right to Rent Checks

The 1st February 2016 is nearly upon us.  The requirement to undertake “right to rent” checks becomes mandatory throughout England for all tenancies starting on or after this date.

For those in the West Midlands pilot zone apologies, you will all be very familiar with the processes and what is required. For everyone else this is yet more legislation you need to understand and ensure compliance with if involved in letting property.

Essentially the principle legislation is the Immigration Act 2014. There is currently a further Immigration Bill before parliament which may change certain aspects, including making a failure to comply a criminal offence.  The Home Office is continuing to issue Guidance and it is expected that over the coming months further Guidance and tweaks to the existing Guidance will be issued.

The basic principle is that a landlord may not allow an adult to occupy a property under a residential tenancy agreement unless they satisfy one of three criteria:

  • The adult is a British Citizen; or
  • They are an EEA or Swiss National; or
  • They have a right to rent in the UK.

Of particular note is that this does not just apply to the named tenants but any known occupiers of the Property. You must therefore ask if there is intended to be any additional occupiers.

If the tenant should sub-let, whether lawfully or unlawfully, they will become the responsible person for undertaking these checks. Also if the tenancy is a company let for the company’s employees the onus will be on the company to check however their remains uncertainty about other occupiers such as family members and many agents will wish to satisfy themselves that they have a right to rent, at least initially, until further clarity.

This means for all tenancies you need to think who actually will be occupying. You are required to check the right to rent in the 28 days prior to the start of the tenancy.

To check whether someone has the appropriate right to rent you need to see the appropriate documents. The types of documents you can accept are set out in two lists.  Group 1 (sometimes referred to as the Safe List) and Group 2 (Semi-safe list).  Essentially Group 1 are passports and Visas which will be the norm although it is believed over one million British Citizens do not have a valid passport.

You must physically see the original of these documents with the person in front of you (there is a provision for you to have the originals with the person on video link but this is unlikely to be widely used). You must check the document to be satisfied that it is not an obvious forgery, you are not expected to be a document expert but should be satisfied as to the authenticity of the documents presented.  You should then take and keep copies.  These copies should be kept for one year after the end of the tenancy.   You should ensure you record how and when the copies were taken and by whom.

If the person has a time limited right to be in the UK (e.g. a time limited visa) provided they have even one day beyond the start of the tenancy left on that document they will have a right to rent for 12 months. However you must then do a follow up check either within 12 months or if the right to remain is later (i.e. longer than 12 months) at the end of this right. Given therefore such checks must be done within 28 days before hand this means in month 11 or the month before the right expires and you should ensure you have systems in place for recording when follow up checks are required.

Whilst prior to the start of the tenancy if someone cannot establish the right to rent you have no obligation to report them to the Home Office on a follow up check if the documents are not provided (again face to face) or the right is established you will have to report this to the Home Office.

There is a provision within the Immigration Bill that in the case of a follow up check failure the Home Office may be able to issue an Order allowing you to evict the tenant. We need to wait and see exactly what the provisions are when passed and any accompanying regulations to see how this will work in practice.

For those who have not got documents, possibly because of an application or appeal which is pending, you can contact the Home Office Landlord Checking Service either online or via the telephone enquiry line. You will then receive within 2 working days a response confirming whether or not this person has a right to rent. This response will have its own unique reference number and will contain details as to when follow up checks are required and should again be kept.  The Home Office makes clear this is not however an advice service.

It is important to note that you must not apply the checks in a discriminatory way. This means that you must not offer someone less favourable terms (e.g. as to length of term) simply based upon the right to rent check.

In terms of enforcement it will be the Home Office who will enforce probably following on from intelligence they have gained. You will then have 28 days to object and if appropriate provide evidence of compliance.  Thereafter the Home Office can issue a civil penalty which must be paid within 28 days (if paid within 21 days the penalty will be 30% lower) or may be appealed to the county court. For a first offence the penalty is £1,000 per occupier and for subsequent penalties £3,000 per occupier.

This article is only intended to be a brief overview of the new rules. It is important that you familiarise yourself with the Home Office Guidance if you are doing these checks and keep an eye out for updates.

Filed under: England & Wales

Telephones

We are today experiencing some issues with our telephone lines where if people call in we cannot hear them.  If you experience this please do email instructions@painsmith.co.uk and we will come back to you.

Apologies, our engineers are working hard to correct the problem.

Filed under: England & Wales

PainSmith Seminar

Our next Seminar will take place on Thursday 21st January 2016 at The Holiday Inn, Peartree Roundabout, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 8JD. The Seminar is slanted specifically towards relocation companies. The event will start with registration and lunch from 1pm and run from 2pm to 5pm with networking drinks until 7pm.

Topics to be covered include the following:

 Immigration and the right to let;

 Legal updates on cases, legislation and regulation, including the Deregulation Act 2015;

 High value damage and deposit disputes.

PainSmith Helpline subscribers will be able to attend the Seminar at a cost of £30 plus VAT (£36 including VAT) per person. Non-helpline subscribers will be able to attend the Seminar at a cost of £60 plus VAT (£72 including VAT) per person. Places are limited to forty delegates so book your place today in order to avoid disappointment. Places can be booked by completing the attached form and emailing it to emmab@painsmith.co.uk.

 

Filed under: England & Wales

Appointment of a manager to leasehold blocks

Over the past couple of years we have acted and advised on a number of occasions with regards to appointment of a manager.

For owners of leasehold properties, particularly Buy to Let investors, one of the biggest bugbears can be poor or none existent management. Some freeholders or their supposed managers seem to take little or no interest in the building which can have a significant effect on leaseholders.  In some situations little can be gained by looking to enfranchise for various reasons and in our experience Right to Manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 does not work for all.  This can be particularly true when you have an investor with perhaps one or two flats in a development who does not want to become involved in the complexities of an RTM application and involving themselves with the other residents.  For them they wish to see value for money repairs and maintenance.

In the above the appointment of a manager under Section 24 of the Landlord and tenant Act 1987 can be the route to adopt.

This is a fault based ground. This means you have to be able to show the Landlord and or their agent are breaching the terms of the lease and the RICS service charge code. In practice when there is dissatisfaction this is often not that high a hurdle.

The first step is to serve notice under Section 22. This is where the leaseholder sets out their complaints.  The landlord is then given a reasonable period of time to respond and explain how they are going to remedy these breaches.

If no response is received, or an unsatisfactory one then an application can be made to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The only real requirement is to propose a suitable manager.  Typically they will need to have some form of professional qualification and be prepared to act as a tribunal appointment which is a personal appointment although a managers firm may undertake the day to day tasks.

At any hearing the first step will be to prove that a section 22 notice has been served and the landlord did not provide an adequate response. You must then prove the inadequacies of the landlord and the tribunal will interview the proposed manager.  The tribunal will want him to understand that his appointment is by the tribunal and he reports to them.  Typically the Order, if made, will fix the fees payable and the length of appointment which will often be for three years initially.

The process is one which can be very useful in a mismanaged block which does not want to enfranchise or exercise a right to manage or has done so and this is the cause of the problems! If you are involved in any such blocks we are experienced in dealing with such matters and would be happy to have a preliminary discussion to see if we could assist. For further advice please contact David Whitney on 01420 565310 or email davidw@painsmith.co.uk

Filed under: England & Wales

Christmas Seminar 17th December 2015

PainSmith are holding a Christmas Seminar on Thursday 17th December 2015 at the Slone Club, 52 Lower Slone Street SW1W 8BS. There will be a morning and evening seminar with topics being covered including Immigration Act and the right to rent, the Deregulation Act and legal updates. Some places are still available and there is a small charge for Helpline Subscribers of £30 inclusive of VAT and £60 inclusive of VAT for non-members. If you are interested in a place please call the office on 01420 565310 or email emmab@painsmith.co.uk for details. Places are limited so get in touch quickly!

Filed under: England & Wales

Mediation in Property Disputes

We have previously blogged on mediation back in 2011. Its significance in disputes is now greater than ever. Pretty much every court and tribunal will encourage parties to disputes to have actively considered mediation and many run their own mediation schemes. Those of you in business will typically need to have reference to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) within any complaints/regulator process which will often be mediation.

To us at PainSmith knowledge of mediation is an important feature of litigating disputes. Particularly landlord and tenant disputes and those involving longer term leases whether residential or commercial. The reason being that whatever the outcome of a particular dispute you will have an ongoing relationship. Commercially parties are often sensitive to the issue of costs. Court proceedings today can become hugely expensive with the reality being that the costs outweigh the sums in dispute. Believe it or not that many lawyers, and certainly PainSmith Solicitors, are alive to this and do not want clients to find themselves litigating about costs. We have also blogged in the past as to some of the delays we are experiencing in the civil courts. Civil claims can typically often take 18 months to come to trial and whilst the process is ongoing every party is in limbo and there is never a guaranteed outcome. All claims have litigation risks which can be many and varied.

Hence why mediation is something all parties should think about at the outset. Looking to reach an agreement should not be seen as a weakness. It is a prudent and sensible step to be taken. Courts, tribunals and ombudsman’s schemes all encourage this approach and many will penalise those who do not consider properly this option. Most mediators will tell you there is no such thing as a dispute that cannot be mediated. The important thing with this process is that it is the parties’ process. You the parties’ contract with each other and the mediator as to the process you wish to follow. A lawyer versed in meditation will be able to help you through this and advise as to what steps or process should be followed, the skilled mediator will help to guide and facilitate this process. The route and procedure to follow is never set in stone.

So why show my hand at an early stage? Essentially this is a two way street. All litigation in England and Wales, whilst being adversarial, requires disclosure of the party’s case and all relevant evidence. When referring to documents this is everything, whether supportive of your case or not. So what is there to lose? We would suggest little. The mediation itself will be a confidential and without prejudice forum. Both parties should approach it in the spirit of being open. It is a real opportunity to lay out your case and for the other side to do likewise. Even where there are substantial differences as to fact and evidence the process can be used to narrow the issues. This of itself may be beneficial to all in that narrowing the issues may of itself help save substantial costs of litigation if the court is left with clear and defined areas to be determined.

Mediation is not limited to what the court or tribunal can award or order. The mediation essentially does not have a limit on what it can determine. That is a matter simply for the parties to agree. We have seen a commercial dispute over service charges which was subject to High Court proceedings where costs estimates for all parties totalled nearly half a million pounds where the parties mediated. The final agreement had no relation to what the court could order but agreed processes and procedures resolving the current dispute and to prevent further disputes in the future. It was clear thinking on the parties being aware that they did not want to find themselves in this position again and using mediation as an opportunity to agree a framework to prevent this.

ADR and mediation are very much buzz words for those dealing with consumers and the way you deal with complaints. All the various studies undertaken have shown that mediation works in increasing the chance of reaching an agreement and maintaining relationships. All of this can be vital to your work. Mediation, when successful, results in an agreement. This is a two way process.

We are always very happy to discuss the benefits of mediation with clients. David Whitney is an accredited Civil Mediation Council mediator with a particular emphasis on property mediations and is available to act as a mediator.

Filed under: England & Wales

Section 21 Prescribed Form 6A

Dear All,

Just to remind all Helpline Subcribers that we have uploaded today the most up to date version of the Prescribed Form. If you have downloaded a version prior to todays date, 7th October 2015, please discard and download the most up to date version to make sure it is the current prescribed form.

Any queries for our Helpline subscribers please do call 01420 656310, option 1.

Filed under: England & Wales

Deregulation Act and Retaliatory Evictions

No doubt everyone who reads this blog is getting sick of the whole sea change of regulations due to come into force on 1st October. It seems no time at all since March and the passing of the Deregulation Act 2015 when we all breathed a sigh of relief over deposits.

One part seems to be missed a little and may turn out to be one of the most important aspects for Landlords. That is Section 33, titled within the Act as “Preventing retaliatory evictions.” Whether we agree the concept exists or not this section will come into force on 1st October 2015.

So what does it involve and mean for landlords and agents?

In simple terms it is about ensuring let property is kept adequately repaired and maintained in compliance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Nothing to worry about here you all shout, we are good responsible agents and landlords. However all is perhaps not as straight forward as you may think.
Whenever you receive a complaint in writing from a tenant regarding the condition of the property you must within 14 days give an “adequate” response in writing and in default a section 21 notice cannot be served. Whilst it refers to the complaint being in writing given there will inevitably be judicial consideration of these regulations we suggest that you ensure all complaints, no matter how minor, are clearly logged on your system and responded to. This means even when you have a telephone conversation with a tenant and resolve an issue in that conversation we would recommend that you confirm that conversation and what was agreed was your adequate response in writing or email so you have evidence of compliance. This may be overkill but better that than having a section 21 notice dismissed for lack of evidence of compliance on your part.
The next question is what is “adequate”. The Act provides limited explanation. It should provide an explanation as to what action the landlord is taking and the proposed timescales, clearly this will be subject to judicial interpretation. We think it means practically you need to show you are being pro-active in trying to resolve complaints and so if any doubt you must either go yourselves or send a competent person to inspect any reported problem on each and every occasion no matter how trivial they may appear. The response must set out the timescales in which you intend to undertake any remedial action. In effect it will be a report as to what was found, what you are going to do and when. Hence many firms are likely to develop a standard pro forma.
The section also provides that if the tenant is unhappy with your response he can complain to the local authority who may then serve a notice requiring works to be undertaken. If such notice is served then no valid section 21 notice may be served for 6 months from the date of that notice.
All the provisions provide that section 21 notices cannot be served after the actual complaint either by the tenant or service of the notice by the local authority. Arguably this does not effect earlier section 21 notices or situations where the tenant has complained to the local authority but they have not inspected either by the time of the service of the notice or the court proceedings. However practically we suggest that it is likely that where issues are raised this will inevitably either lead to accelerated claims being listed for hearings or adjournments being granted to ascertain if the local authority is taking action. Whilst there may be arguments to say that courts should not do this in our experience we think this will be District Judges response, at least until an upper court directs otherwise!
For private landlords there are limited safeguards and exceptions. These include if you can show the tenant has been the cause of the poor condition either from positively damaging the property or omission. Again the landlord will need to prove this. The other exception is if it can be genuinely shown the property is on the market for sale. Again we suspect very good evidence will be required by courts to prove this is the case and not just an attempt to get around the regulations.
It is vital therefore that those of you actively involved in property management look at your processes. Ensure it is 100% clear as how and to whom complaints of disrepair should be addressed and that your processes for dealing are clear. You may also want to remind landlords that just because a tenant complains is not a reason to serve a notice and in fact may no longer be possible. And finally as with, any of the other regulations sadly it will come down to judicial interpretation of the regulations and so for the time being there are many unanswered questions.

Filed under: England & Wales

Section 21 Prescribed Form amended already!

As many of you will have read there was concern as to errors in the first draft version of the prescribed Section 21 Notice issued by Government. As a result amendments have been rushed through for a New Section 21

The changes are modest but this is now the prescribed form which you should be using. We will be updating our document vault with this new version later today for our Helpline subscribers.

Filed under: England & Wales

New Prescribed Section 21 Notice is published

Hot on the heels of the smoke alarm debacle new regulations have been published prescribing the form for a section 21 Notice which must be used from 1st October 2015. (The Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015. 

As the name suggests these only apply to England. We think the idea of a prescribed form is a good one as it will help avoid arguments over the wording of the section 21 Notice. Obviously it is concerning that there is such a short lead in time although we have been expecting the same for some months now. For most agents completing the form should cause little difficulty, particularly for those used to giving old style Section 21 notice.

The regulations do however refer to three, in effect, new requirements for service of a valid section 21 Notice. The Landlord or Agent will need to show that the EPC and Gas Safe Certificate was given to the Tenant. Practically we would suggest that additional copies probably should be served with the Section 21 Notice, thereby saving arguments. Agents will no doubt wish to draw this to Landlords attention and make clear without these documents they will not be able to use the non-fault Section 21 Notice.

Also there is an entirely new requirement. At the start of each tenancy (including renewals) you will need to serve “How to rent: the checklist for renting in England”. This will only be available in electronic form on the Gov.uk website and Landlords and Agents will be expected to download and print off this 8 page document for each tenancy.   As with prescribed information it is important agents can prove this was given although again you may wish to serve a further copy with any notice to avoid issues being raised. Plenty to look at and certainly going forward we expect the issuing of accelerated possession proceedings will be more difficult given the extra hoops required to prove which will inevitably lead to further changes to the relevant court forms.

The Regulations apply in their entirety only to ASTs that are granted on or after the 1 October 2015, but subject to section 4, which provides that the  new form must be used. Therefore we advise that the new form be used for all notices served as soon as the Regulations come into force, i.e. 1 October 2015.

Finally, we comment on the note 1 on the form itself, which seems to be intended to help people give the correct date for expiry. First the note advises the landlord to allow two extra days for service, without advising them to check the terms of their tenancy agreement, or to allow for weekends and public holidays.

Secondly the note refers to serving notice on a statutory periodic tenancy under s21(4). Following the rule in Spencer v Taylor   notice on  a statutory periodic tenancy may be given under section 21 ( 1) following the expiry of the fixed term. Section 21(4) applies where there has never been a fixed term, e.g. a contractual periodic tenancy from the outset, or where the term is expressed at the outset to continue on a contractual periodic basis, but neither of these are statutory periodic tenancies. The note does not make it clear that although a notice served under s21 (4) may not expire earlier than a notice to quit could,   a statutory quarterly  periodic tenancy ( under the current interpretation of the Housing Act 1988) may, in our view,  be brought to an end by giving  two months’ notice under Section 21 ( 1).

Filed under: England & Wales

Smoke Alarms and Carbon Monoxide Detectors and Recent Developments

We recently blogged on the proposed changes to a landlord’s safety requirements to provide smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors (see here ).

On Friday, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published some guidance as to the implications for landlords. A full copy of the DCLG guidance can be found here

However last night the House of Lords refused to pass the Regulations saying there had been no consultation and agents and landlords did not have enough time to comply. The Regulations may therefore be modified regarding the date all properties must comply. However PainSmith Solicitors advise that agents and landlords ensure all properties comply by 01 October 2015.

In summary, in preparation for 01 October 2015 or the designated date, landlords of all rental properties (subject to a small number of exemptions – such as licenced HMO properties and properties where there is a resident landlord) will be required to do the following:

  1. Install at least one smoke alarm on each storey of a rental property that is used as living accommodation. These alarms may be battery powered or hardwired. However check with the local authority as some may have local regulations which require more stringent conditions. The above requirement is for all rental properties not just those with tenancies beginning after 01 October 2015.
  2. Install a carbon monoxide detector in any room that contains a solid fuel appliance which includes coal or wood burning fires and wood burning stoves. For information wood burning stoves installed since 2011 must already have a carbon monoxide detector and a certificate proving they have been safely installed. The certificate must be kept as it will be required upon sale of the property.
  3. Currently gas appliances are not covered by the above Regulations but we strongly advise that carbon monoxide detectors are installed in properties powered by gas appliances or oil fired appliances. We anticipate the gas safe regulations may be amended at some stage to require this in the future. Again, to emphasise installation of carbon monoxide alarms is a requirement for all rental properties with solid fuel appliances not just those with tenancies beginning after 01 October 2015.
  4. Carry out testing to ensure that all smoke and carbon monoxide alarms are in working order at the start of each new tenancy commencing on October 1 2015 or thereafter. There is no requirement to check existing alarms in tenancies that are continuing or renewed. Landlords should keep evidence of the testing for example as an entry on the check in report or inventory preferably signed by the tenant or their representative.
  5. Include a term in tenancy agreements requiring tenants to check the alarms at least once a month to ensure all smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors remain working, to replace batteries where necessary and to report any other faults to the landlord.
  6. Include a clause requiring landlords to install smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors in the Terms of Business and imposing a liability on the landlord to ensure the smoke alarms and the detector are in working order at the start of a tenancy and throughout the tenancy if the property is not managed by the agent.

There will be no grace period for compliance with the Regulations after 01 October 2015 if the Regulations are passed by Parliament.

Filed under: England & Wales

Another successful enfranchisement

Today we completed yet another successful freehold acquisition!

David Whitney and his team acted throughout in putting together with, a steering group of residents, a claim for enfranchisement of a development of two blocks of flats, various freehold houses and associated grounds comprising over 70 units. PainSmith worked with the steering group to ensure more than the minimum number of leaseholders were interested. After this they prepared the necessary participation agreements and served the required notices.

PainSmith worked with the resident’s valuer to deal with various issues over the premium necessary and settled all the necessary legal documentation. The acquisition opens the way for those taking part to grant themselves valuable lease extensions and help in ensuring the ongoing good management of their estate.

If you are thinking about possible acquisition of your freehold or lease extensions please contact David Whitney for a without obligation discussion of your options.

PainSmith Solicitors are proud members of the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners

Filed under: England & Wales

New Terms of Business

PainSmith Solicitors has updated its lettings terms of business to incorporate recent changes in legislation. The new version is available to purchase now from our online shop  for £200 plus VAT.

Filed under: England & Wales

Deregulation Act – Grace Period Expires on 23 June 2015

Just a quick reminder that, as explained in our blog on the Deregulation Act (here), if landlords or agents have any “Superstrike deposits” (i.e. those that were received before 06 April 2007 where the tenancy has been renewed or fell into a statutory period tenancy after that date) that have not already been protected in a government deposit protection scheme this must be done (along with serving the prescribed information) by no later than 23 June 2015 in order to avoid the penalties for non-compliance as set out in Section 214 of the Housing Act 2004.

Filed under: England & Wales

Legionnaire’s disease and the HSE

We are aware that certain companies have been contacting landlords and agents in an effort to sell their services to carry out risk assessments for legionella bacteria in rental properties. These tests are often expensive and in most situations are completely unnecessary as is recognised by the Health and Safety Executive in its mythbusters section of the website.

The above mirrors the advice that we have always given in our past blogs here : yes there must be a written risk assessment, and that risk assessment must be done by a competent person BUT “competent” does not mean having any specific qualifications – all that is required is for the person carrying out the risk assessment to understand the circumstances in which legionella bacteria grows and becomes a risk; and what steps can be taken to reduce the risk of disease. That could be the landlord or agent.

Filed under: England & Wales

Consumer Rights Act 2015 and lettings agent fees. More duties for lettings agents?

From 27 May 2015 there will be a statutory duty on lettings agents in England  to publicise the fees they charge.

What needs doing?

  1. Agents need to display prominently in each office and on the agent’s website ( if there is one):
    1. A list of fees. The list must give enough information so that a person can work out what exactly they are paying for, and why, and how much it will cost. The list must set out whether the fees are per property or per individual. Where there is a joint tenancy is it one fee for all, or for each individual to pay? The fees must be set out inclusive of VAT ( and any other applicable tax), and where that fee is not determinable in advance, a description of how the fee is calculated, for example Landlord’s commission fees.
    2. If the agent holds client monies, a statement as to whether the agent is a member of a client money protection scheme.
    3. A statement to say that they are member of a redress scheme and giving the name of that scheme.

Who needs to do it?

Lettings agents in the Private Rental sector. Local authorities are excluded. The duty (and therefore any penalty) falls upon the agent and not salaried employees of the agent.

What does “fees” mean in this context?

For the purposes of this legislation “fees” means “ the fees, charges or penalties which a landlord or tenant pays to the agent in relation to letting agency work, property management work or otherwise in connection with an assured tenancy or a dwelling-house let under an assured tenancy”. Some exclusions are set out. Rent and Deposits are excluded ( but not “holding deposits”) and some third party fees e.g. agent paying a contractor on behalf of a landlord.

Penalties for non compliance

Trading Standards can fine an agent up to £5000.00. The first step is that they would serve a “notice of intent” upon the agent setting out the proposed penalty and reasons for it. The agent has 28 days to respond. Trading Standards then decides whether to impose the penalty and if it does, will send a “final notice” requiring payment within 28 days. If the penalty is imposed an agent has a right to appeal through the FTT .

More detail can be found in the explanatory notes to the act.

When does it need doing?

Agents will need to be in compliance by 27th May 2015

In fact, most agents who are already adhering to the requirements of membership of a particular professional body and complying with the rules of their redress scheme, are likely to already be doing the above.   Of course all agents should check that they are compliant with the new legislation, but those who are not already doing the above need to put measures in place to ensure that they are doing so by 27 May 2015.

Filed under: England only, , , , ,

Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarms

Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarms

We have had a number of helpline calls over the last few days regarding the new regulations relating to smoke and carbon monoxide alarms so we thought it was about time that we put out a blog to answer some of the frequently asked questions.

The government has announced that landlords will soon be required by law to install working smoke and carbon monoxide alarms in their rented properties and that section 150 of the Energy Act 2013 would come into force from 11 March 2015.

Section 150 (1) of the Act states that the government can make regulations which impose the duty on landlords that ‘during any period when the premises are occupied under a tenancy –

  •  the premises are equipped with a required alarm (or required alarms), and
  • checks are made by or on behalf of the landlord in accordance with the regulations to ensure that any such alarm remains in proper working order.’

Section 150 (2) of the Act defines ‘required alarm’ only as a smoke alarm or carbon monoxide alarm.

The regulations which are referred to in the Act, the proposed Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015, are currently only available as a draft. It is expected that the Regulations will take effect from October 2015. We have outlined a number of key points from the Regulations below, but please note that these will not be confirmed until the Regulations are approved later in the year.

What is the requirement on landlords?

Regulation 3(1) defines the ‘relevant landlord’ upon whom the duty is imposed as the immediate landlord in respect of a specified tenancy and excludes registered providers of social housing.

Regulation 4 sets out what the specific duties of the landlord will be during any period beginning on or after 1 October 2015 where the premises are occupied under a tenancy. A smoke alarm will need to be fitted on each storey of the property where there is a room used wholly or partly as living accommodation. A carbon monoxide alarm will need to be fitted in any room which is used wholly or partly as living accommodation and contains a solid fuel burning combustion appliance. For the purposes of the above, bathrooms and lavatories are included in the definition of a room that is used as living accommodation and a ‘room’ includes a hall or landing.

Checks will also need to be made by or on behalf of the landlord to ensure that each alarm is in proper working order on the day the tenancy begins if it is a new tenancy.

Regulation 4(4) defines the term ‘new tenancy’ and confirms that this duty only applies to tenancies granted on or after 1 October 2015 and does not include:

  •  tenancies granted by an agreement entered into prior to 1 October 2015;
  • statutory periodic tenancies which arise at the end of a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy; or
  • any extensions entered into a the end of an earlier tenancy where the landlord and the tenant have not changed and the premises being let are the same or substantially the same as those let under the earlier agreement.

Enforcement

Under Regulation 5, if the local housing authority has reason to believe that the landlord has not complied with their duties set out in the Regulations, they must serve a remedial notice on the landlord setting out which duties it believes the landlord has failed to comply with and what action should be taken. The notice will require the landlord to take action within 28 days of the date on which the notice was served. If the landlord does not agree with the contents of the notice, they can submit a written appeal within that 28 day period.

Regulation 6(1) states that if a landlord is served with a remedial notice, they must take the action specified within the notice within the 28 days. Under Regulation 7(1) if the landlord fails to comply with the terms of the notice, the local housing authority will arrange for an authorised person to take the action specified in the notice, but only with the consent of the occupier of the premises (Regulation 7(1) and (4)).

A landlord will not be in breach if they can show that they have taken all reasonable steps, other than legal proceedings, to comply with the terms of the notice (Regulation 6(2)).

Penalties

Under Regulation 8, if the local housing authority is satisfied that the landlord has failed to comply with the terms of the remedial notice, they can impose a penalty charge which cannot exceed £5,000. The landlord does have a write to request a review of the penalty charge and can appeal it on various grounds (Regulation 11(2)) to the First-tier Tribunal if they do not agree with the local authority’s decision.

As we have said above, these Regulations will not be in force until October 2015, and we will be sending out another blog closer to the time to confirm what the provisions and remind you of the imminent changes. Until then, it is always best practice to ensure that any rented properties have adequate working smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors to ensure the safety of the tenant.

Filed under: England only

NEW Section 8 Notices, New Section 13 Notices

Just a short reminder that from 6 April 2015 any section 8 or section 13 notices must be served on the new form and we have put them in a word template on our shop and, for our helpline subscribers they are free in the vault.  To ease your pain we have added a rental arrears only section 8 template for serving when there are, well rent arrears only.

Filed under: England & Wales

Deregulation Act 2015

The long awaited Deregulation Act received Royal Assent on Thursday 26 March 2015 and provides an immediate amendment of the law in relation to tenancy deposits. These changes are very welcome for landlords following the flurry of cases following Superstrike v Rodrigues.

The Superstrike amendments:

  • If the deposit was received before 06 April 2007 and went period before 06 April 2007

The position set out in Charalambous v Ng  continues to apply.

  • If the deposit was received before 06 April 2007 but was renewed or went periodic after 06 April 2007

If the deposit has not been protected, the landlord now has a period of 90 days from 26 March 2015 (or before the Court hearing to determine a tenant claim for compensation or to determine the landlord’s claim for possession under s.21, whichever is the earlier) to protect the deposit and serve the prescribed information.

  • If the deposit was received after 06 April 2007

If the deposit has been protected and the prescribed information served at the outset, provided the deposit remains the same with the same scheme, the landlord will be treated as if he/she has complied. There is no need to re-protect the deposit and/or re-serve the prescribed information on renewal or roll over into a period tenancy.

If the deposit has not been protected at all, the Act doesn’t change the landlord’s liability.

Other Tenancy Amendments

The Act also provides many other amendments not only relating to landlord and tenant law. For our readership, the following are important:

  • Section 30 clarifies PainSmith’s view (see our blog here) that an agent can sign and serve the prescribed information on behalf of the landlord. The section amends The Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 to make this explicit without the need to refer to the primary legislation. All references to “the landlord” within the Order have been amended to read “either the landlord or a person who acts on the landlord’s behalf in relation to the tenancy”.

 

  • Section 35 of the Act removes the requirement from s.21(4)(a) for the date of expiry of such a notice to be the last day of a period of the tenancy.

 

  • Section 36(2) provides that a s.21 notice cannot be given during the first 4 months of a tenant’s occupation under a tenancy agreement. This gives the tenant the same 6 month security of tenure but makes timing of the notice trickier where possession is required at the end of a 6 month term.

 

  • Section 36 also provides that a s.21 notice will only have a shelf life of 6 months after which possession proceedings cannot be issued on the notice. This is contrary to the previous approach that the Courts were taking that a s.21 notice could be relied on until it was waived.

 

  • Section 37 allows the Secretary of State to require landlords to use prescribed forms for s.21 notices. There is currently no prescribed form but Section 37 leaves it open that this might change.

 

  • Section 40 requires a daily apportionment of rent to be paid back to the tenant in the event that the tenant has paid rent in advance but a s.21 notice is subsequently served requiring the tenant to give up possession of the property during the period that the rent payment covers.

 

The Act also contains provisions to prevent the retaliatory eviction of tenants following orders being made by the local authority relating to disrepair at rental properties. The provisions are set out in Section 33 of the Deregulation Act but they are not yet in force. Watch this space for further details on the enactment of these amendments, which is expected to be towards the end of this year.

Filed under: England & Wales, , , , ,

Buying your freehold: Section 5 Landlord and Tenant 1987, Right to Buy

We have talked previously about long leaseholders purchasing their freehold.

PainSmith has recently assisted a substantial development of about 100 flats and various commercial units to purchase their freehold.  The Freeholder of this development entered into liquidation. The Liquidators served notices under Section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 giving the residential leaseholders a right of first refusal.  The development consisted of about 100 long residential leaseholders and various separately let commercial units.

Certain of the leaseholders approached PainSmith for advice and we were able to advise on their rights that provided not less than 50% of the residential leaseholders wanted to purchase they could do so at the price included in the notice.  PainSmith assisted in the co-ordination of the leaseholders to bring on board more than the numbers required.  This meant explaining the process and assisting in drafting documents for the leaseholders and then obtaining valuation advice to assist the participants in making the decision to proceed.   Acceptance Notices were served within two months of the service of the notice and the form of contract was agreed with the Vendors.  PainSmith assisted in dealing with an investor who was found to fund the premium payable in respect of the non-participant minority leaseholders so that those taking part did not have to fund this part of the premium.

The transaction completed allowing the residents who participated to have control of their destiny moving forward at a price they were advised was advantageous.

If therefore you or any of your clients in respect of leasehold property they own receive a Section 5 Notice from a freeholder indicating they are looking to sell their freehold interest we at PainSmith are experienced in:

  1. Advising on the Notice, its validity and steps to be taken,
  2. Assisting finding suitable valuation advice and if necessary finding investors to help fund the purchase.
  3. Co-ordinating all the various steps including payment of completion monies.
  4. Dealing with all of the formalities both prior to and post completion  of the freehold.

If you have any queries or questions do not hesitate to contact a member of the long residential leasehold team who will be happy to discuss and assist

Filed under: England & Wales,

The Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015

Some of you may have seen that as at 6th April 2015 new forms have been prescribed for certain notices and applications with the most relevant to our readership being those in respect of Section 8 and Section 13 of the housing Act 1988 (as amended).  We will be updating the Notices for sale on our Shop and also those contained in our Document Vault (for our Helpline subscribers) and will put up a post once done.

In the meantime you should be aware that if from the 6th April 2015 you are looking to serve one of these notices it must be in the new form or it will be invalid.

So what are the changes?

In the main they are minor changes to the guidance notes.  With regards to the Section 8 Notice it is to take account of the fact that two new grounds (Grounds 7A and 14A) have been enacted. For the section 13 notices it is to update them to provide that the forum for referring any rent not agreed is the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) which now undertakes the functions of the Rent Assessment Committee.

So the changes are minor and probably practically make very little difference for most of what you do, but be warned the new notices must be used or you do run the risk of any reliance you place on such a notice being challenged!

Filed under: England & Wales, , , ,

Time to get your house in order

Landlords are facing the prospect of wider and more severe sanctions for failing to keep rental properties in a safe and habitable condition.

From yesterday landlords who fail to comply with an Improvement Notice or Prohibition Order to ensure properties are safe and habitable face unlimited maximum fines in the magistrate’s courts. Previously there was a £5000.00 cap. That cap has been removed.

Further, Improvement Notices and Hazard Awareness notices in relation to category 1 and category 2 hazards are a “relevant notice” for the purposes of the proposed new section 21A of the Housing Act 1988, which is set to come in imminently with the Deregulation Bill. If the Bill is passed in its current form the new section 21A will provide that if a tenant complains in writing to the landlord regarding the condition of a dwelling house, and the landlord serves a section 21 notice, and after the landlord has served the section 21 notice the local authority serves an Improvement Notice or Hazard Awareness Notice, that section 21 notice will be invalid.

For those readers in need of a refresher, Hazard Awareness Notices, Improvement Notices and Prohibition Orders are part of the inspection and enforcement mechanism contained in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System introduced by the Housing Act 2004. A local authority has the right to inspect residential premises for hazards.

There are 29 hazards, in 6 main areas:

  • Damp and mould, excess cold, excess heat
  • Pollutants including asbestos, CO, Lead, Radiation
  • Space and security, light (is there enough?) and noise (is there too much?)
  • Hygiene, sanitation, water supply including adequacy of food preparation areas.
  • Accidents – protection from falls, slips, trips on stairs, electric shocks, burns, scalds
  • Collisions – structural hazards, poor design, explosions, collapse.

An environmental health officer, usually, but not always, following a request from a tenant, can attend a property and inspect for hazards. Each hazard identified is given a score based on the likelihood of an accident happening combined with the probable harm if it does happen. Depending on the score a hazard will be either a “category 1” hazard or a “category 2” hazard.

Category 1 hazards are the more serious.   A local authority must take enforcement action. Depending on the seriousness of the hazard the first step might be to attempt to deal with the matter informally by sending the landlord a “minded-to” letter, giving the landlord a time-limited chance to remove the hazard before taking enforcement measures. If the landlord does not comply, the local authority is likely to serve

an Improvement Notice ( this requires works to be undertaken to remove or minimise a hazard); or

a Prohibition Order ( this closes whole or part of the dwelling, or restricts the number of occupants); or

an Emergency Prohibition Order (If the hazard is thought to pose an “imminent risk of serious harm to the health and safety of any occupiers” in the property, the local authority might make an emergency prohibition order).

An Improvement Notice must set out in detail what the hazard is and set out clearly what work needs doing and a date by which the works must be started and completed. A Prohibition Order must set out what works must be done  for the order to be revoked. Failure to comply with an Improvement Notice or Prohibition Order constitutes an offence.  On conviction the fine until 12 March 2015 was capped at £5000.00. It is now unlimited. The local authority is entitled to recover the costs of enforcement, including the cost of an improvement notice.

Category 2 hazards are the less serious. The local authority has a power to take action, but not a duty. It can issue a Hazard Awareness Notice but there is no power to enforce. However if the Deregulation Bill is passed into law, a Hazard Awareness Notice served on a Landlord may be sufficient to invalidate a section 21 notice if the other conditions of the proposed section 21A are satisfied.

You can read more about the fines here.

You can follow the progress of the Deregulation Bill here.

 

Filed under: England & Wales, , , ,

Possession claims – court fees rise again

It has been announced by HM Courts and Tribunals Service that many Court fees will be significantly increased from 9 March 2015.

The fees for possession proceedings have been further increased by £75 with the fees for claims issued via the Court’s Possession Claims Online (PCOL) system now rising from £250 to £325 and the fee for paper based claims to rise from £280 to £355.

Most will be aware that this will be a very unwelcome increase, particularly considering that the issue fees for possession claims were already increased by over 60% just last April.

The area that has seen the biggest change are money claims, as detailed below:

  • The fee for claims from £1 – £9,999 will remain unchanged;
  • The fee for claims from £10,000 – £199,999 will now be five per cent of the claim; and
  • The fee for claims £200,000 and above will be fixed at £10,000.

The new fee increases are part of wider efforts to modernise and improve the efficiency of the courts and move towards a system which is self-funded. Understandably there has been much criticism of the increases, which will continue to add to the cost of accessing justice for litigants.

Filed under: England & Wales

Agents, bribes and secret profits

 

FHR European Ventures LLP and others (Respondents) v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 45

It is a well-known principle that an agent must account to his principal, and that an agent who holds or receives money on behalf of his prinicipal is bound to pay over or account for that money. If a third party then sues the agent for that money, the agent has the right to bring in the principal (“interplead”).

It is also a general principle that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal because he is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of the principal in circumstances that give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence; and as a result the agent must not make a profit out of his trust; and an agent who acts for two principals with potentially conflicting interests without the informed consent of both is in breach of his obligation.

This summer the Supreme Court examined the application of that principal when moneys have been received by an agent as a bribe or a secret profit.

In the case of FHR v Cedars  an agent negotiated the purchase of share capital on behalf of its principal ( the buyer).  Unbeknownst to the principal the agent had made a deal with the seller that they would receive a commission of 10 million euros following the successful sale and purchase.  The buyer, when it became aware of the deal, sued its agent for the 10 million euros.

The Supreme Court held that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal;  not only did the principal have a right to sue for the sum equal to the benefit the agent had received, but that the principal has a proprietory interest in that benefit.

“where an agent acquires a benefit which came to his notice as a result of his fiduciary position, or pursuant to an opportunity which results from his fiduciary position, the general equitable rule ( “the Rule” ) is that he is to be treated as having acquired the benefit on behalf of his principal, so it is beneficially owned by the principal……a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal”.

In the sphere of lettings, if a landlord’s agent makes a secret profit, that profit is considered to be the property of the Landlord. Clearly an agent holding or receiving rent must hand it over to the landlord:  it is the landlord’s money. An agent holding overpaid rent should also hand it over to the landlord, and let the tenant pursue the landlord for the refund (although that principal is under challenge from consumer protection regulations and codes of conduct).  But what would constitute a bribe or secret profit, the benefit of which would belong to the landlord?

Consider the following examples.

  • An agent arranges for a contractor it has on its books to do work for its managed properties.   The contractor, in exchange for the work, agrees to pay the agent 10% of its profits from the work done. If the agent does not disclose the arrangement and get the agreement of both parties, the agent will be in breach of his duty and that profit will belong to the landlord. Where it is set out in the agent’s terms of business with the landlord that he takes a cut from the contractor, the agent can rely on that clause to show he is not in breach and that the landlord was fully aware and could give informed consent. Again the ability to accept such payments is under challenge from consumer protection regulations.
  • An agent facilitates an early surrender of a tenancy. The Landlord agrees unconditionally.   The agent asks for and takes a lump sum payment from the tenant as consideration for the early surrender but does not tell the landlord of the deal, nor does he pass the money on. That payment belongs to the Landlord. If you are seeking a payment from the Landlords tenant, even if to cover your administration charges, this should be disclosed to the Landlord and agreed by them.
  • The terms of business between agent and landlord provide that the cost of an inventory clerk will be £200.00 plus £50.00 admin fee for arranging the same. The inventory clerk gives a discount of £50.00 and charges only £150.00. The agent does not tell the landlord and charges the landlord £250.00. £50.00 of that money belongs to and must be handed over to the landlord.

Where agents are acting as estate agents any breach of such fiduciary duty could lead them to be struck off. Lettings agents are now at risk of being ejected from the compulsory redress schemes and unable to practice, as well as of being sued for negligence etc.  However agents can protect themselves by agreeing fees with their clients at the outset, and declaring and passing over any monies that come to them during their instruction. Transparency as to all arrangements for receiving payments from any third party connected with the tenancy is key.

 

 

 

Filed under: England & Wales, ,

I predict a riot – Anti-social behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014

The Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) was given royal assent in March 2014. It amends the Housing Act 1988 to include a new mandatory grounds for possession based on anti-social behaviour. Sections 97 to 100 ( in Part 5) of the Act deal with the new grounds for possession relating to Assured Tenancies ( of which Assured Shorthold Tenancy is a subset). These provisions are not yet in force, and will come in via a Commencement Order sometime in the future.

New ground 7A

In summary ground 7A of schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 will provide that the court must give possession if any one of 5 conditions are met:

1. the tenant and/or another occupier or visitor has been convicted of a serious offence and that offence took place in or near the property; or elsewhere but against a tenant/occupier of the property; or against the landlord or agent
2. the tenant/occupier or visitor has breached an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance( which is a new injunction to be introduced under this act)
3. the tenant/occupier or visitor has breached a criminal behaviour order ( also new order under this act) and that breach was in or near the property, or caused or was likely to cause harassment to a tenant/occupier or landlord/agent, wherever it took place.
4. the property has been closed down under s73 of the Act. The court has a power to prohibit entry to a property where the use of the premises has resulted in or likely to result in serious nuisance to members of the public.
5. the tenant is in breach of an abatement notice relating to statutory nuisance ( breach of Environmental Protection Act 1990 or noise nuisance

The grounds will not be made out if the conviction is in the process of appeal, or has been overturned.

There are time limits: for example for 1,3 and 5 the notice must be served within 12 months of the conviction; for 2 within 12 months of the court making its finding; and for 4 within 3 months of the closure order. The date that the notice expires and after which the landlord could bring proceedings will be one month from the date of service during a fixed term tenancy, or for periodic tenancies, the earliest date that the tenancy could be brought to an end by a notice to quit. Interestingly the reference to the common law principal of notice to quit suggests that in a periodic tenancy, where a landlord can give only two months’ notice at any time, a notice given under 7a will need to expire at the end of a period of the tenancy.

Why ground 7A? Because the mandatory grounds for possession go from 1-8 so this ground has been shoe-horned in at no 7A and is not related to ground 7.

Will it ever be used? In a fixed term then possibly, especially if the fixed term is for a relatively long period with no break clause. In a periodic tenancy arising after the end of a fixed term, unless and until the use of section 21 is limited, why use ground 7a, which would require a hearing and expire at the end of a period, when you could simply serve two months’ notice under the ruling in Spencer v Taylor and the accelerated procedure.

The discretionary ground 14 is also to be amended to make it a ground if the tenant or occupier “has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord of the dwelling-house, or a person employed (whether or not by the landlord) in connection with the exercise of the landlord’s housing management functions, and that is directly or indirectly related to or affects those functions”. There is no need for the conduct to take place at the rented property.

Controversially, ground 14ZA is added to include that the tenant/occupier has been
convicted of an offence which took place during, and at the scene of,
a riot in the United Kingdom.

Filed under: England only, , , , , ,

Redress Schemes for Letting Agents – countdown to deadline

Sadly the gremlins got into the Painsmith blog again and the address for one of the three authorised schemes was incorrect.  Here they are in full.

The Property Redress Scheme:  www.theprs.co.uk.

The Property Ombudsman:    http://www.tpos.co.uk

Ombudsman Services:  http://www.ombudsman-services.org/property

Filed under: England & Wales

Redress Schemes for Letting Agents – deadline to sign up 1 October 2014

From 1 October 2014 anyone carrying out “lettings agency work” operating in England must belong to a government authorised redress scheme or face a fine of up to £5000.00.

Who does it apply to?

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 s83 provides:

S83…….

(7)In this section, “lettings agency work” means things done by any person in the course of a business in response to instructions received from—

(a)a person seeking to find another person wishing to rent a dwelling-house in England under a domestic tenancy and, having found such a person, to grant such a tenancy (“a prospective landlord”);

(b)a person seeking to find a dwelling-house in England to rent under a domestic tenancy and, having found such a dwelling-house, to obtain such a tenancy of it (“a prospective tenant”).

(8)However, “lettings agency work” does not include any of the following things when done by a person who does no other things falling within subsection (7)—

(a)publishing advertisements or disseminating information;

(b)providing a means by which—

(i)a prospective landlord or a prospective tenant can, in response to an advertisement or dissemination of information, make direct contact with a prospective tenant or (as the case may be) prospective landlord;

(ii)a prospective landlord and a prospective tenant can continue to communicate directly with each other.

With regards to property management work:

S84……

(6)In this section, “property management work” means things done by any person (“A”) in the course of a business in response to instructions received from another person (“C”) where—

(a)C wishes A to arrange services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or to deal with any other aspect of the management of premises in England on C’s behalf, and

(b)the premises consist of or include a dwelling-house let under a relevant tenancy.

(7)However, “property management work” does not include—

The section goes on to define “relevant tenancy” as an Assured Tenancy ( of which Assured Shorthold Tenancy is a subset); a Rent Act tenancy, and residential long leases. Commercial leases are not relevant tenancies.

In short, if you are a lettings agent, a relocation agent, or a property management agent then the rules apply to you and if you are not already a member of a scheme you have a fortnight from today to do so.

Newspapers that carry advertisements, web portals which facilitate landlords and tenants finding each other directly are not considered to be carrying out “lettings agency work”, nor does the definition apply to things done by a local authority.

Currently there are three schemes:

The Property Ombudsman   http://www.tpos.co.uk/

Ombudsman Services – Property    http://www.ombudsman-services.org/property.html

Property Redress Scheme   www.theprs.co.uk.

Agents should also be aware that in order to comply with the  Consumer Contracts (Information Cancellation and Additional Charges  Regulations 2013  the name and details of any redress scheme be given to consumers before any contract is entered into. The information should be given either in the terms of business or separately but before the contract is concluded.

Filed under: England & Wales

Erratum : Spencer v Taylor and Superstrike v Rodrigues revisited, revisited

Our blog dated 7 August 2014 contained a rather important typo which was drawn to our attention and corrected within one hour of the original blog going up.

It has now come to light that subscribers to the blog were not alerted to the correction. The corrected version is repeated below. We hope that it was obvious from the tone of the article that it was a typo and we are very grateful to our original subscriber who queried the point. We apologise for any confusion caused.

So here is the correct version:

Spencer v Taylor [ 2013] EWCA Civ 1600

The Court of Appeal ruled that when serving notice on a tenant in a statutory periodic tenancy, provided there was once an initial fixed term, Landlords may serve valid notice by giving not less than two months’ written notice i.e according to the provisions of section 21 (1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988. There is no need for the notice to expire at the end of a period of the tenancy; even if the period is six months, the Landlord need only serve two months’ notice in writing.

We blogged on this here.

So why are we bringing it up again? Our original blog advised caution in moving over to the practice of serving notices on statutory periodic tenants under s21 (1)(b) on the basis that the tenant might appeal, and that the decision might take time to trickle down to the lower courts. Indeed the tenant did apply to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court but has been refused leave to appeal, which means that the Court of Appeal decision continues to be good law unless and until a new case on the same issue reaches the Supreme Court.

Helpline subscribers can access a notice that follows the ruling in Spencer v Taylor from our document vault to use in statutory periodic tenancies.

Where there was never an initial fixed term, or where a fixed term is expressed to continue on a contractual periodic basis, the provisions of section 21 (4)(a) should be followed.

Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669 (14 June 2013)

When a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy ends, a statutory periodic tenancy arises. That tenancy is a new tenancy for the purposes of the deposit protection legislation ( ss212 to 215 Housing Act 2004 as amended by the Localism Act 2011). At the end of the fixed term the Landlord/Agent is deemed notionally to have returned the deposit and then re-received it. This means that the requirements to comply with the deposit protection rules kick in once more – you need to protect the deposit in a government authorised scheme and serve the appropriate prescribed information.

We blogged on this here

So why are we bringing this up again? Because although our advice has always been to re-serve the prescribed information, we did not know how the courts were going to apply Superstrike. We have had brought to our attention the case of Gardner v McCusker. In this county court case the Landlord had failed to (re)serve the prescribed information when the tenant’s fixed term ended and a statutory periodic tenancy arose and then served a section 21 notice. The court found that the landlord had not complied with the deposit protection requirements and that the section 21 notice was invalid. This is one county court decision. It is not binding on other courts. However, why risk the point being raised and exposing yourself to a penalty and failed possession proceedings? There are plans afoot to amend the deposit protection legislation with amendments to the Deregulation Bill which is currently going through Parliament. A court decision might come along which says that the prescribed information served in the fixed term satisfies the requirement to serve when a statutory periodic tenancy arises. Until then, just get into the habit of serving new prescribed information whenever an SPT arises and save yourself some trouble later.

Filed under: England & Wales

Spencer v Taylor and Superstrike v Rodrigues revisited.

Spencer v Taylor [ 2013] EWCA Civ 1600

The Court of Appeal ruled that when serving notice on a tenant in a statutory periodic tenancy, provided there was once an initial fixed term, Landlords may serve valid notice by giving not less than two months’ written notice i.e according to the provisions of section 21 (1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988. There is no need for the notice to expire at the end of a period of the tenancy; even if the period is six months, the Landlord need only serve two months’ notice in writing.

We blogged on this here.

So why are we bringing it up again? Our original blog advised caution in moving over to the practice of serving notices on statutory periodic tenants under s21 (1)(b) on the basis that the tenant might appeal, and that the decision might take time to trickle down to the lower courts. Indeed the tenant did apply to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court but has been refused leave to appeal, which means that the Court of Appeal decision continues to be good law unless and until a new case on the same issue reaches the Supreme Court.

Helpline subscribers can access a notice that follows the ruling in Spencer v Taylor from our document vault to use in statutory periodic tenancies.

Where there was never an initial fixed term, or where a fixed term is expressed to continue on a contractual periodic basis, the provisions of section 21 (4)(a) should be followed.

Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669 (14 June 2013)

When a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy ends, a statutory periodic tenancy arises. That tenancy is a new tenancy for the purposes of the deposit protection legislation ( ss212 to 215 Housing Act 2004 as amended by the Localism Act 2011). At the end of the fixed term the Landlord/Agent is deemed notionally to have returned the deposit and then re-received it. This means that the requirements to comply with the deposit protection rules kick in once more – you need to protect the deposit in a government authorised scheme and serve the appropriate prescribed information.

We blogged on this here

So why are we bringing this up again? Because although our advice has always been to re-serve the prescribed information, we did not know how the courts were going to apply Superstrike. We have had brought to our attention the case of Gardner v McCusker. In this county court case the Landlord had failed to (re)serve the prescribed information when the tenant’s fixed term ended and a statutory periodic tenancy arose and then served a section 21 notice. The court found that the landlord had not complied with the deposit protection requirements and that the section 21 notice was invalid. One swallow does not make a summer. This is one county court decision. It is not binding on other courts. However, why risk the point being raised and exposing yourself to a penalty and failed possession proceedings? There are plans afoot to amend the deposit protection legislation with amendments to the Deregulation Bill which is currently going through Parliament. A court decision might come along which says that the prescribed information served in the fixed term satisfies the requirement to serve when a statutory periodic tenancy arises. Until then, just get into the habit of serving new prescribed information whenever an SPT arises and save yourself some trouble later.

Filed under: England & Wales, , , , ,

Categories

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Have you tried the PainSmith toolbar?

Useful links and access to the PainSmith blog in a convenient toolbar within your web browser. Available from: painsmithlettingshelper.ourtoolbar.com/