The world of residential conveyancing is ever-changing and one of our Carbon Partners, Luke Weldon, has put together an article discussing the latest changes to Section 21 evictions.

My meat and drink world of commercial property is a difficult one to comment on as I must wait an age for a decent case to get my teeth into. On the other hand, the world of residential property is more giving and seems to supply a new regulation every 5 minutes.

Thus, the Renters’ Reform Bill has just been published. It is something of a flagship for the new government and they seem very proud of it. Of course, these are only proposed changes from a bill in its early infancy with a long journey ahead.

The first of my articles will focus on the proposal to abolish the so called “no fault” Section 21 Eviction. As the name implies, it allows landlords to evict tenants without reason.

It has undeniably been subject to widespread abuse by rapacious landlords turfing families out to circumvent rent increase restrictions or allowing properties to fall into appalling disrepair with the looming threat of a section 21 eviction if any tenant dares to complain. Conspiracy theories abound about the last attempt at reform being buried by the landlord lobby. But there are also fundamental issues for those landlords. This is the tenant’s home. It is also the landlord’s property. They don’t have to rent it. And as I have discovered over many years, not all tenants are nice. Balance is needed.

Seemingly to that aim, new grounds for eviction are proposed such as when the landlord needs to sell the property or when the landlord or a family member needs to move in.

Unfortunately, it still doesn’t get round the problem I faced in the pre-Section 21 world.  It is not a point I have seen anywhere which leads me to suspect that I may be a little older than many working and commenting on this bill.

Here’s the scenario. Unscrupulous tenant moves in. Pays deposit. Doesn’t pay another penny. Landlord seeks possession when 2 months rent falls due, thus providing a mandatory right to possession. On the day of the court hearing, tenant appears and suggests a counterclaim based on the condition of the property.  This could off-set the rent owing to possibly under 2 months meaning the landlord may not get possession.  Who knows? The court can’t guess, so the can is kicked many months later to the trial where the tenant fails to attend or produce any evidence (and obviously pays no rent till then). The landlord is fleeced, and an already clogged and under-resourced court system is further burdened.

Of course, you can’t take away a tenant’s fundamental right to sue for the condition of the property. But this scam can be circumvented if this can’t be used as a counterclaim to set off rent arrears. The disrepair claim can stand alone; the landlord may still be ordered to compensate the tenant for any loss suffered; it will discourage withholding rent; and possibly more tenants will remain in properties that are better looked after.

Don’t get caught in the weeds of regulatory changes, consult a professional and let an experienced partner at Carbon advise you on how any changes might effect you and your assets.

Luke Weldon is a Partner at Carbon Law Partners specialising in real estate and commercial issues. To learn more about Luke and his services, click here.

You can contact Luke at luke.weldon@carbonlawpartners.com or 07816 755 372.

The contents of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. Always consult a legal professional before taking any action.