Newsflash - Renters' Rights Bill 2024
September 12, 2024

Newsflash - Renters' Rights Bill 2024

Yesterday, 11 September 2024, the Government introduced the Renters’ Rights Bill (the ‘RRB’). Although this Bill is new it is very similar to the Renters (Reform) Bill introduced by the Conservative Government in 2023 which didn’t make it to the statute books.


The RRB, if passed in its current form (and it has some way to go first through Parliament), introduces a number of amendments to the Housing Act 1988.


End of Assured Shorthold Tenancies


The RRB abolishes assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs). All ASTs will become periodic assured tenancies. This will mean the end of starter tenancies where the tenancy is an AST for the initial period and it then converts to an assured tenancy.


The current proposal is that this is immediate with no transition period – although this could change.


End of Fixed Terms


The RRB abolishes fixed term assured tenancies. This means that all fixed term tenancies will become periodic tenancies based upon the rental period. Furthermore, new periodic tenancies must have rental periods which are either:

  • 28 days or less; or
  • Monthly.


Scrapping of Section 21 ‘no fault’ notices and evictions


By abolishing assured shorthold tenancies, the RRB also abolishes section 21.  So, no more Section 21 ‘no fault’ notices can be issued by registered providers or private landlords.  Everyone will need to use ‘grounds’ for possession and prove those grounds to a Judge.  These grounds will be existing ones in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 or new/amended ones – see below.


Grounds of Possession


The RRB introduces new mandatory grounds of possession:

  • Ground 2ZA – a superior landlord is seeking possession from the housing association.
  • Ground 5C – tenancy granted due to employment and this has come to an end (makes the current Ground 16 a mandatory ground).
  • Ground 5B – the property is required for someone who needs it for employment requirements.
  • Ground 5G – property let to local authority to help with homelessness duty and it is no longer required for that purpose.
  • Ground 6A – possession is required because of enforcement action being taken by local authority.


A new discretionary ground (Ground 18) is also proposed. This will enable landlords to seek possession of supported accommodation where the tenant is unreasonably refusing to engage with the support offered.


  • The RRB will also amend Ground 8 (the mandatory ground for high level rent arears). The minimum level of arrears to trigger Ground 8 will be:13 weeks in the event of a weekly or fortnightly periodic tenancy; or
  • 3 months in the event of a monthly periodic tenancy.


As quarterly and 3-monthly periodic tenancies will no longer be permitted, the provisions in respects of these will be repealed.


The RRB will also require that, where a tenant is entitled to the housing element of Universal Credit but has not yet received it, the amount they are due to receive has to be ignored.


Proposed Changes to Possession Notice Periods


Where a possession notice cites Ground 7A (the mandatory anti-social behaviour ground) of schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 the RRB will allow for proceedings to be commenced immediately following service of the notice. This brings Ground 7A in line with Ground 14 (the discretionary anti-social behaviour ground).


The table below sets out the proposed notice periods for the grounds other than Grounds 7A and 14:


  GROUND SPECIFIED IN NOTICE:

   1, 1A, 1B, 2, 2ZA, 2ZB, 2ZC, 2ZD, 4A, 6, 6A

 four months beginning with the date of service of the notice

   5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5H, 7, 9

 two months beginning with the date of service of the notice

   5E, 5F, 5G, 8, 10, 11, 18

 four weeks beginning with the date of the service of the notice

   4, 7B, 12, 13, 14ZA, 14A, 15, 17

 two weeks beginning with the date of the service of the notice

 


Where Grounds 7A and/or 14 are included in a notice, possession proceedings will be able to be commenced as soon as the notice is served.


Tenant’s Notice to Quit


The RRB also amends the requirements in respects notices to quit given by tenants under assured tenancies. Under the RRB tenants must give at least 2 months’ notice to quit. There is provision for the tenant and the landlord to agree to a shorter notice period in writing. 


The RRB also addresses the thorny question of the revocation of a tenants notice to quit. The RRB allows a tenant to withdraw their notice to quit, before it expires, as long as the landlord consents.


The RRB does not alter the regime for a landlord serving a notice to quit (in the circumstances where a landlord is permitted to do so).


Private Landlords (may include social landlords who also let properties on a non-social tenancy basis)


As well at the above, the RRB will:

  • Introduce Awaab’s Law for private landlords;
  • Give private tenant’s the right to request to keep a pet (subject to some conditions);
  • Introduce the Decent Homes Standards for private landlords.


Conclusion


The RRB will bring forward many of the reforms promised by Labour as part of their manifesto and appears to ‘super charge’ the previous Government’s reform proposals. It is important to note that, whilst introducing the RRB to Parliament is an important milestone, it still has to go through numerous readings in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and through the Committee stage where various amendments may be introduced. Therefore, if the RRB makes it to the statute books it may look fundamentally different.



It is also important to remember that, even if the RRB does make it through the process, different provisions may come into force at different times (and indeed, some may never come into force at all).


The question still hangs over this legislation of how the County Court will cope with all landlords having to go before a Judge to prove their ‘ground’ for possession.  The Justice system is already strained and this could cause backlogs for all court users. 


At CobbWarren, we can advise you on all your options for these forthcoming changes. Contact us today to speak to one of our specialist housing solicitors.

February 26, 2025
What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store for ASB and Housing Providers
January 23, 2025
Are you prepared for Awaab's law?
By Joseph Warren October 21, 2024
Is an exceptional level of RPI good reason to depart from an increase in pitch fees at that level? – Mobile Homes Act 1983
By Daryl Bigwood October 14, 2024
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.
By Joseph Warren August 7, 2024
Responding to the riots: what powers do Housing Associations have?
By Joseph Warren July 15, 2024
Recent CobbWarren court success clarifies the position on Access Injunctions
October 19, 2023
The Chambers UK Legal Guide 2024 was released today – with a familiar name making its debut appearance.
May 30, 2023
What does the Renters (Reform) Bill mean for the social housing sector? In this article, we look at the key changes that, if enacted, will affect housing associations and their tenants.
Show More