Coronavirus and Housing Management – Changes to legislation, Court practice and policy
PAR002_123 • April 20, 2020
Information about the changes to legislation, Court practice and policy due to the corona virus that affect housing management.
1. Changes to legislation
The Coronavirus Act 2020 made important changes to notice periods for Section 21 Notices and Section 8 Notices (NOSP). In both cases, a 3-month notice period now applies before possession can be sought. The housing section of this Act can be found here.
To run along side that, the prescribed format of these notices has been changed and must be used in all circumstances, they can be found here.
2. Court practice
Many of you will have been in touch with your local courts to confirm what their arrangements are. Some of the smaller courts are currently closed with matters being transferred to neighbouring areas.
The Lord Chief Justice has made the following direction in relation to County Court cases:
4. No hearings which require people to attend are to take place in any County or Family Court until further notice, unless there is genuine urgency and no remote hearing is possible. All cases currently being heard should be adjourned part heard so that arrangements can be made, where possible, to conduct the hearing remotely.
Possession claims
On 27 March 2020, the Lord Chief Justice also put in place a new Practice Direction for civil procedure which puts a ‘stay’ of 3 months on all possession proceedings, no matter what they relate to or when they were commenced.
The new practice direction can be found here.
Injunctions
The new practice direction confirms that this does not affect injunctions. Injunctions tend to be urgent but, at the moment, you may wish to take to court only those which are the most urgent e.g. involving violence or threats. Again, it is best to call the local court and find out their arrangements. A without notice injunction could be done by telephone (as it is just the Judge and you/your solicitor) and the return date set for further in the future or to be by telephone if the defendant is able to attend in that way.
We have already seen an increase in the need for urgent injunctions during the crisis; many are linked to people failing to socially distance themselves or putting others at risk.
Notices about to expire
You may have notices which are about to expire even with the 3 month extension that is in place, e.g. Section 8 NOSPs or Section 21 notices served long before the current crisis.
If this is the case, you may want to start the Court claim. Courts are still issuing possession claims and then immediately staying them. Carrying out this procedure will ensure you do not have to re-serve a notice or that a Starter tenancy is allowed to convert by letting the notice expire. It may also help avoid your claim getting stuck in a backlog at the court once the moratorium comes to an end.
3. National Housing Federation guidance and policy decisions
The National Housing Federation recently stated that "no one in a housing association home will be evicted due to coronavirus. If you are concerned about your ability to pay, please contact your housing association who will want to support you".
This statement suggests that action will not be taken by any HA for rent arrears, although it is open to interpretation on whether that means all arrears or just arrears arising because of coronavirus (which may be difficult to establish).
We strongly recommend that a policy on notices and evictions is developed by each association in view of the comments by the NHF. If you are challenged on taking any action (whether now or after the moratorium) then you will be able to show compliance with your policy.
Such a policy might cover:
- Whether you will serve notices at present.
- If so, in what situations (e.g. ASB only).
- If you do proceed with any rent notices/claims what you will do to establish if the arrears are caused by coronavirus.
- Whether you will agree to adjourn all ongoing court cases and evictions. If so, for how long.
- How you consider particularly vulnerable groups of tenants in view of this policy.
- A review date to revisit the policy.
It is likely that any association would be heavily criticised for not having a policy in place to deal with this issue and for not changing how and when it serves possession notices at the current time.
Should you have any queries please drop us an email
or give us a call on 0117 287 0181.
What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store for ASB and Housing Providers
Are you prepared for Awaab's law?
Is an exceptional level of RPI good reason to depart from an increase in pitch fees at that level? – Mobile Homes Act 1983
Cobb Warren were recently successful in an appeal against the decision of a District Judge to refuse an application to include a positive requirement in an injunction pursuant to Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 ("the 2014 Act"). This took place in October in front of a Circuit Judge in the County Court at Bristol. Our client sought to include a provision requiring the respondent to engage with support services to help address the underlying causes of the anti-social behaviour the respondent engaged in. The District Judge at first instance refused the application on the basis that such an order would amount to an order of mandamus (orders of mandamus have, since 2004, been known as ‘mandatory orders’ - they are specific to public law matters) and therefore, pursuant to section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984. The District Judge said that the County Court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order. The appeal was argued on two points: 1. The order was not an order of mandamus (or mandatory order) as such orders are remedies in public law proceedings only and not private law proceedings; or 2. In any event, even if it were, the 2014 Act creates a separate statutory scheme which enables the County Court to include any positive requirements in an injunction in order to prevent the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour. The Circuit Judge hearing the appeal allowed the appeal on both grounds. In respects of the second ground, we advanced an argument that the decision in Swindon Borough Council v Abrook [2024] EWCA Civ 221 supported the ground as: 1. The Court of Appeal determined that the Court’s usual case management powers to vary or set aside an order of its own volition did not apply to injunctions under the 2014 Act. This was therefore indicative of the 2014 Act creating its own statutory scheme. 2. The Court of Appeal was considering an appeal from the decision of a District Judge in the County Court and determined, at paragraph 109 of that earlier judgment that a Court should consider making positive requirements. Therefore, the Court of Appeal seemingly accepted that positive requirements were available in the County Court. Overall, we achieved a good outcome for our client and obtained clarity as to the use of positive requirements. Such requirements can often be more effective in addressing anti-social behaviour, by addressing the causes of the behaviour, rather than simply prohibiting the behaviour itself. A review of the Court's powers in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour by the Civil Justice Council in 2020 emphasised the importance of including positive requirements in injunctions. One of its recommendation was to increase their use as a way of addressing underlying issue causing Anti-Social Behaviour. If you need to discuss the above case or require any guidance please get in touch with us.
Newsflash - Renters' Rights Bill 2024
Responding to the riots: what powers do Housing Associations have?
Recent CobbWarren court success clarifies the position on Access Injunctions
The Chambers UK Legal Guide 2024 was released today – with a familiar name making its debut appearance.