Landlords could potentially exploit an eviction loophole in the Renters’ Rights Bill

Can we please stop referring to to Section 21 as a ‘no fault’ eviction. It is no such thing.
Firstly, it is not an eviction notice. It is, essentially, a formal notice asking the tenant to leave. Only a judge can order an eviction.
Secondly, whilst it may be ‘no fault’ of the tenant, it could be issued for one of the grounds available under Section 8.Section 8 already contains grounds that are no fault of the tenant, such as repossession by the lender. The Renters Rights Bill proposes to add Ground 1A for when the landlord wishes to sell. This is probably the most common reason for a Section 21 although alleged antisocial behaviour, rent arrears and a tenant asking for a Section 21 to jump the Social Housing queue are also reasons why Section 21 is so popular. It’s also much easier and less stressful than Section 8.

Very useful to publically highlight a loophole that the government will soon close.

be impossible to prove 'major works' required if it is due to MANDATED EPC upgrades. How the hell are you supposed to show comprehensive renovations are required to tick this box??

The EPC document will show that internal insulation is one of the methods to increase the EPC rating so showing a perfectly decorated external facing kitchen wall from the inside proves nothing.

Jeezz have these people nothing better to do. Leave the major works description in and let the tenant prove otherwise if they are contesting a possession claim on this ground.

An inventory company saying that one part of the renters right bill is vague.

"The firm says that independent inventory reports could provide a solution for landlords by adding transparency and accountability."

Is this just an advertising article?

"Can we please stop referring to to Section 21 as a ‘no fault’ eviction. It is no such thing."

You are preaching to the converted and banging your head against a brick wall will only give you a headache. That ship sailed years ago and even King Canute was not able to stop the incoming tide.

read the post - it will be down to the TENANT to contest - not the LL who may use the clause.

inventory reports are not a legal requirement so not something a judge could demand a LL produce.

To do as they suggest, having an independent inventory co supervising and perhaps signing off works, is not a skill set possessed by inventory clerks to my knowledge. Further, who do they think would be appointing/ paying for this service (although I suspect we can guess the answer to this if ever it was to be introduced).

If looking for new business, I think they’ve done themselves a disservice, as their (typically) LL clients appointing them for their traditional inventory service will not appreciate this outfit’s ‘intervention’ in the legislative consideration, specifically counter to LL’s interest, so clients will go on to appoint another provider instead. Good shoot in foot.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 02/04/2025 - 11:50
Correct, but the landlord will have to produce sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a possession order is justified on this or any other ground.

Judges commonly demand to see expert evidence in support of a claim.

Pre-action protocols will no doubt be revised to specify what is required before proceedings can be commenced.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 02/04/2025 - 11:38
King Canute didn't try to stem the incoming tide, he was trying to show his nobles the limits of the King's power