Urgent need to review Section 8

Urgent need to review Section 8

8:34 AM, 14th November 2018, About 6 years ago 26

Text Size

The National Landlords Association (NLA) is calling for the Government to review the section 8 possession process.

The section 8 possession process requires landlords to seek a court order to gain possession of their property where the tenant has breached the terms of their tenancy agreement. However, tenants can challenge the possession claim and remain in the property.

For the successful possession claims, there is an average period of 18 weeks between claims and repossessions¹, which can cost up to £355 per claim² in court fees alone. The landlord also has to cover legal costs and may face losses when tenants are in arrears and stop paying rent. The NLA’s latest survey of landlords shows that it can take an average of 145 days to regain possession of a property at a cost of £5,730³.

Rent arrears is the most common reason for a landlord to file a section 8 possession claim. Our landlords panel found that 36 percent of landlords experienced rent arrears and 15 percent have sought to regain possession in the last year³.

The alternative to section 8 is section 21, where no reason is needed and gives tenants two months’ notice. However, this can only be used after a fixed-term tenancy ends or during a periodic tenancy. Landlords often serve both notices simultaneously as it provides greater certainty of vacant possession. This can be vital when a landlord needs to sell the property or move in themselves.

Richard Lambert, CEO of the NLA, says:

“As it stands, the system is failing and needs urgent reform. Landlords are forced to rely on section 21 ‘no fault’ notices, even when there is a breach in tenancy. This is essentially a sticking plaster covering the fundamental issue – that the section 8 process is no longer fit for purpose.

“While the majority of tenancies are ended by the tenant, landlords need to be confident they can regain possession of their properties efficiently in the event of a breach of tenancy to effectively manage their business risk.”

¹ Ministry of Justice Mortgage and Landlord Possession Statistics in England and Wales, April to June 2018

² Ministry of Justice Civil and Family Court Fees (from February 2018)

³ NLA Landlord Panel Survey Q3 2018 (690 respondents)


Share This Article


Comments

terry sullivan

13:29 PM, 15th November 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 15/11/2018 - 12:02
yes--at vast expense

Old Mrs Landlord

13:55 PM, 15th November 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 15/11/2018 - 12:15Yes, we add a paragraph to the rental agreement along the lines of "I confirm I have received a copy of the currently valid gas safety certificate". This follows their confirmation of the keys etc. which they have received.

Michael Barnes

23:21 PM, 15th November 2018, About 6 years ago

One change needed to S8 is that disrepair cannot be used as a defence unless it was notified in writing to LL before S8 was issued.

Rob Thomas

12:43 PM, 16th November 2018, About 6 years ago

I believe you still have the option to raise the rent even when S21 has been disallowed. So if you need a property back to sell it you can raise the rent a great deal and use S8 when the tenant fails to pay. This is perfectly reasonable where the tenant is using a loophole in S21 to evade leaving a property the landlord needs back.

Luke P

12:53 PM, 16th November 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Rob Thomas at 16/11/2018 - 12:43
You can only raise the rent if there is provision in the tenancy *or* the tenant agrees. Assuming the tenant doesn't agree or if the raise is too much, the tenant can have this independently assessed...go too stupid with the level of increase (in order to cause them difficulty in the hope of using a S.8) and you may get no rise at all. I would say anymore than 10% would be frowned upon and disallowed by a rent officer.

Michael Barnes

14:31 PM, 16th November 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 16/11/2018 - 12:53
Courts have also ruled on this, making it unlawful to use unreasonable rent increase as a device to force the tenant to give up the tenancy.

Chris @ Possession Friend

17:35 PM, 16th November 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 16/11/2018 - 12:53
If there is any provision in the tenancy agreement, Form 4 under Section 13 Housing Act can't be used ( see note at para 9 of the form ) A letter to tenant informing of the increase. no more often than every 12 months

Michael - have you got any cases to quote on rent increases for AST's ?

Michael Barnes

9:39 AM, 17th November 2018, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 16/11/2018 - 17:35If there is any provision in the tenancy agreement, Form 4 under Section 13 Housing Act can't be used ( see note at para 9 of the form )
If it is a SPT AST, then HA 1988 S13(1)(a) says you can.
There is also a ruling (almost certainly incorrect because judge considered S13(1)(b) and ignores S13(1)(a), but binding until anyone appeals) that a rent-increase clause does not carry over to a SPT (https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2009/06/rent-review-megarry-at-last/), so you are left with S13 or agreement for a rent increase.
S13 cannot be used in fixed term if there is a rent-increase clause, nor in a contractual periodic if there is a rent-increase clause.

Michael Barnes

10:12 AM, 17th November 2018, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 17/11/2018 - 09:39
Error in previous post: S13 cannot be used in a fixed term; it applies only to periodic tenancies.

Michael Barnes

10:23 AM, 17th November 2018, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 16/11/2018 - 17:35
Michael - have you got any cases to quote on rent increases for AST's ?
I'm sorry, I have nothing at my finger tips (or easily found).

The case I recall reading (but did not bookmark) involved a tenancy agreement where after a certain period the rent would increase dramatically (I think it was 5 or more times original rent). The judgement was along the lines that "this was an unlawful device to make the tenant give up the tenancy".
BUT there was no indication of what might be considered acceptable.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now