CARIDON PROPERTY LTD -V- MONTY SHOOLTZ

Even more worrying is the suggestion that the pre-requisites for service of S21 notices will transfer over to the new regime after the proposed abolition of S21 and could therefore apply to S8 notices as well.

In view of the far reaching implications it is a pity that the case was not appealed further but that opportunity is long gone and the ruling will stand unless overruled by a higher court or a change in the law via Parliament. Whilst technically not binding on Courts outside London, it is given added weight by the standing of HH Judge Jan Luba QC, who is an acknowledged expert in Property Law and one of the authors of "Defending Possession Proceedings" of which Amazon says "This book has established itself as the book that lawyers and advisers turn to in a housing crisis. It is the key 'homelessness prevention' handbook - a comprehensive guide to all aspects of the law relating to possession proceedings."

I suspect that he would be the prime candidate to head up a specialist Housing Court if such a body were ever established so as in all things we should be careful what we wish for.

If s.21/Dereg. requirements are indeed carried over to s.8 upon s.21’s abolition, a missing/omitted/late Gas Safety Certificate could prevent eviction for, say, arrears. Does that mean, theoretically, a tenant could run up an unlimited amount and the only way to get rid of them is when they themselves decide to move?

A very worrying aspect of this ruling is that in the past many of us have been giving the tenant all the required information documents at the time they sign the tenancy agreement but until the Caridon/Schoolz ruling had not asked the tenant to sign that they had received them. In such cases, if it ever becomes necessary to issue a Section 21, any tenant who feels aggrieved at eviction could deny having received the documents at the correct time and it would be their word against the landlord's. It really seems as if, rather than being fair to all parties, the law is increasingly being rigged in tenants' favour which will inevitably result in an exodus of landlords from the sector. As has been said above, there is no remedy for innocent mistakes or oversights or even to deal with situations where the landlord has complied with regulation to the letter but subsequent legislation has opened up loopholes to be exploited by wily lawyers acting for undesirable or defaulting tenants.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 09/08/2019 - 11:52
Paul Shamplina met with MHDCLG yesterday and discussed this case and its significance to the current Section 21 process. Currently we are all in limbo until it is decided what happens next.

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 09/08/2019 - 14:12
Totally agree with your comments.
In this case there was no Gas in the tenants actual dwelling but central heating in the communal walk way, the case was appealed but I believe that similar cases need to also be appealed.

All my tenants have been renting from me for several years. As Old Mrs Landlord says, back then we didn't ask tenants to sign for receipt of the gas cert. Until a couple of years ago the certs were produced on a carbon pad and the fitter left one copy for the tenant, kept one for himself and gave one to me. He now completes them electronically and emails them to me and I now give one to the tenant and ask for a signature. Surely if we need to begin S21 proceedings with a long standing tenant it couldn't be thrown out because 7/8 years ago we didn't request a signature - could it??

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 09/08/2019 - 12:41It is section 2 of "A New Deal for Renting" that gives rise to these concerns, specifically paragraphs 2.30 to 2.34
2.30 The Deregulation Act 2015 contains measures aimed at improving safety in the private rented sector by requiring landlords to have met several safety and best practice standards before being able to use section 21 to end a tenancy.
2.34 Tenants across all sectors must have confidence that their home is safe. The Government intends to carry over the measures detailed above into the new tenancy regime so that tenants can be protected after the assured shorthold regime is removed from the Housing Act 1988. We will also consider applying these protections to all users of the Housing Act 1988, not just those in the private rented sector.
Taken at face value, this could indeed mean that it would be impossible to evict for any reason if the Gas Certificate had not been properly served at or before commencement of the tenancy - the other requirements can be rectified at the moment by e.g. refunding the deposit but it is not inconceivable that even this let out could be removed.
I doubt whether even this Government would intend that a tenant could stop paying rent and yet be protected from eviction but my fear is that it could become an unintended consequence if S8 is revised without proper scrutiny or understanding of all the ramifications as seems to have happened with other laws and regulations. Having said that, what is the justification for making any of the S8 grounds subject to compliance with the so-called "protections"?
Getting the new S8 right, fair and balanced is going to be crucial to the survival of the PRS. The last thing we need is another fiasco such as followed the Superstrike case in relation to prescribed information.
I urge everyone to emphasise the importance of this matter when responding to the consultation - if S21 is to be removed, S8 must be available unimpeded by irrelevant obstacles.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 10/08/2019 - 01:54
A comment from another forum: “ Govt has no interest in making it easier for tenants to be booted out in rent default cases.
The longer it can legally make LL retain rent defaulting tenants the better as far as it is concerned.
This because it doesn't have to fund housing costs.
LL lose £9 billion a year mostly caused by rent defaulting tenants.
This is £9 billion the Govt DOESN'T have to resource!
It is just a simple fact that the PRS suffers massive losses.
I can't think of a single other industry which loses so much money to non-paying customers.
It is simply not in the Govt best interests to give speedy possession to LL.
If S8 remains no matter how enhanced it will take an average of 20 months to evict.
That will be the end of the mortgaged PRS which is 50% of the market.
Unencumbered LL are OK as they can afford to lose income as they have no mortgage to pay.
It just means they might miss out on a holiday..........big deal!
Mortgaged LL however are in a whole world of hurt.
It just wouldn't be viable to remain a mortgaged LL.
I predict that Govt will do nothing with the S8 process.
So LL will have to endure even longer court processes as there simply aren't enough Courts and Judges to administer all the S8 claims
It was bad enough with S21.
I can see lots of LL jacking up rents via S13 to get rid of tenants using S21 before it is abolished and then going for better quality tenants.
The last thing the Govt will be doing is to invest in facilities which gives LL easier eviction
Just never gonna happen!
LL are deluding themselves if they believe Govt will adjust the S8 process to be similar to S21.”

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 10/08/2019 - 09:45
That is a fairly extreme view but might well prove to be prescient.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 10/08/2019 - 09:45
@Luke P
"Unencumbered LL are OK as they can afford to lose income as they have no mortgage to pay. It just means they might miss out on a holiday..........big deal!"
Seriously? Is this your view or are you projecting that this might be the government's view?
If the former, I find that statement offensive. Many landlords rely on the rental income for rather more than holidays - so loss of that income IS a big deal and should not be belittled. If properties are unencumbered, most likely it is at the opportunity cost of something else -savings or holidays foregone in the past or simply as a result of hard work.