Renters Reform Roundup for Registered Providers

May 30, 2023

On 17 May 2023, the Government published its much-anticipated Renters (Reform) Bill. Already, there has been talk that the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, is considering backtracking on onerous reforms affecting student lets. But assuming the current draft is enacted, what does it mean for the social housing sector? What are the key changes housing associations need to be aware of?

Here are five things we could soon be saying hello and goodbye to.

1. Farewell, fixed-term tenancies

There will be no such thing as a fixed-term assured tenancy. These will be abolished and replaced by periodic assured tenancies with a maximum rent period of 28 days.

Any fixed-term tenancy that is longer than 7 years will cease to be an assured tenancy. That means the procedure for gaining possession for those will be through forfeiture, not the Section 8 Grounds for Possession.

2. Adieu, assured shorthold tenancies

Announcing the Bill, the Government referred to the reforms as a “once-in-a-generation overhaul of housing law”. If a generation is around 30 years, then perhaps nowhere is that claim more apt than in the abolition of assured shorthold tenancies. Introduced in 1988, the assured shorthold tenancy turns 35 this year.

The most significant consequence of the reform is to remove landlords’ ability to gain possession by serving so-called 'no fault' Section 21 notices.

3. So long, starter tenancies

Another consequence of assured shorthold tenancies departing the scene is that it will no longer be possible to offer a starter tenancy to a new tenant. Without assured shorthold tenancies, there can be no starter period with less security of tenure.

4. Greetings, extended grounds for possession

New mandatory grounds

A superior landlord is seeking possession from the private registered provider of social housing (new Ground 2ZA).

A tenancy was granted due to the tenant’s employment, which has now come to an end. This is currently Ground 16 but becomes a new mandatory ground (Ground 5C). New Ground 5B also provides for possession where the dwelling is required to be let to someone who meets employment requirements.

The property is needed for supported accommodation (Ground 5E) or it was let as supported accommodation for move on and support services have since ended (Ground 5F).

The property was let to help a local authority with its homelessness duty but is no longer required for that purpose (Ground 5G).

Possession is required because of enforcement action being brought by the local authority (Ground 6A).

Finally, there is a new ground for repeated rent arrears (Ground 8A). This applies where at least 8 weeks’ rent remained unpaid for at least 1 day on at least 3 separate occasions in the last 3 years.

Changes to existing mandatory grounds

Ground 8 is to be amended. When calculating rent arrears, you are to exclude any amount that is unpaid because the tenant has not yet received universal credit where they are entitled to an amount for housing.

Discretionary grounds

The reach of Ground 14 (anti-social behaviour) will be extended. In the expanded version, “likely to cause” nuisance or annoyance is replaced with “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance. Generally speaking, this introduces a wider ambit, although this will be open to argument in case law.

New Ground 18 enables landlords to seek possession where a tenant in supported accommodation has unreasonably refused to co-operate with support services.

You can find a useful summary of the revised grounds for possession and notice periods in Annex B of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.

5. Good day, new notice periods

Notice of seeking possession

As well as a new form of NOSP, which will be published by regulations, there will be new minimum notice periods.

The notice period for Grounds 8, 10, and 11 is increased from 2 weeks to 4 weeks.

Landlords can begin proceedings immediately for Ground 7A (severe ASB/criminal behaviour).

However, a possession order cannot take effect until 14 days after a Section 8 notice was served if the only grounds of possession established are either or both of Grounds 7A and 14.

Notice to quit

A tenant can give a notice to quit at any time. For assured tenancies, the standard period of notice will be two months, but a landlord can agree to a shorter period.

A tenant can withdraw their notice to quit if both the landlord and tenant agree in writing.

All change? Watch this space

The Bill is only at the first reading stage in the House of Commons, so the extent to which the proposed changes become law remains to be seen. But the indications are that housing associations will need to make wholesale changes to their tenancy agreements and policies and procedures (particularly around starter tenancy periods and what grounds you will/can use).

If you would like advice on your existing agreements or any other aspect of housing management, contact us today to speak to a member of our team.

< Older Post Newer Post >

What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store

February 26, 2025

What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store for ASB and Housing Providers

Are you prepared for Awaab's law

January 23, 2025

Are you prepared for Awaab's law?

Pitch fee increases and exceptionally high RPI/CPI

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

Positive Requirements in ASB injunctions

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.