A lease that would "encourage" landlords.
When there was an incentive to sell off council properties in the 1980s, politicians decided to "encourage landlords in the rental market" by creating a procedure that makes eviction very easy. The procedure was called 'Accelerated Possession' and it would be available to landlords who made use of a new type of lease called the 'Assured Short-hold'. In this new system, a landlord could give 'Section 21 notice' to a tenant and the tenant would be obliged to vacate within 2 months. If the tenant didn't move on time, the landlord could submit a 'claim' for Accelerated Possession at the local courthouse.
The new lease was given a positive spin with the name 'Assured': The tenant would not be obliged to move out during the first six, 'assured' months.
When a judge sees a claim for accelerated possession, he signs a court order immediately in favour of the landlord. (In any other, 'normal' court case, the defendant can submit a response and a hearing usually occurs which ensures that a presumption of innocence takes place.) The tenant can apply for a follow-up hearing¹ after receiving the possession order, but the judge will allow discussion of only one possibility in such a hearing: The tenant will be asked whether it can be shown that Extreme Hardship would result from immediate possession and, if so, whether he/she wants to ask for a delay of possession.
¹Recently, Shelter showed on TV that a certain lawyer has been using the follow-up 'hearings' as opportunity to ask for suspension of the court orders. However, most judges display no knowledge of their option to vary an order in this way. A judge usually runs a follow-up hearing only as an opportunity to hear whether Extreme Hardship might occur (because this possession system might draw unwanted attention if disabled people begin to be dumped on the streets routinely?)
Since its inception, a judge hasn't needed to know much about Accelerated Possession because it runs almost as an automated process. Few tenants ask for follow-up hearings and Shelter advises them not to because they are expensive and mostly, futile. (In a hearing in Plymouth in 2012, the judge adjourned to do some reading. He didn't have time to discover that a 2007 amendment states that a landlord may not issue a Section 21 Notice unless he/she has secured the tenant's deposit in a tenancy deposit scheme. The tenant didn't know that either until reading it a few years later on Shelter's facebook page.) A tenant will usually lose more money by trying to communicate with the court in any way after receiving Notice, because the communication will only generate a hearing as described above, with fee and more legal costs if the landlord's lawyer attends. (The Plymouth tenant consulted with Shelter who did say to steer clear of any hearings but didn't mention the 2007 amendment.)
NEW in 2015: If a tenant receives Section 21 Notice and then withholds rent to save up for a deposit on a new place, the High Court can send "super-bailiffs" to do eviction within 24 hours of a landlord's appeal. (This new development lies at the heart of several of the "Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away" TV stories.)
 |
It's a bit like time-travel when a landlord puts you through accelerated possession: You feel how it was in the Dark Ages when a king could simply throw you onto the street because he wanted your accommodation. We all believe in "equal justice under the law" but aren't we a bit tongue-tied with respect to termination of Assured Short-hold leases? |
The Section 21 system makes it easy to hurt a tenant who has done no wrong and a recent change in the law means that homelessness can be inflicted in a way that gives officials no time for cross-checking: The landlord can simply say that he stopped receiving rent after he issued a ‘Section 21 Notice’ and that obliges the High Court to provide eviction services within 24 hours.
Knowing that eviction is always just a pen-stroke away causes some tenants to endure poor living conditions that might have an impact on their working lives. (The availability of swift Accelerated Possession makes some neglectful landlords behave as if they are immune to correction.)
A semi-criminal landlord tends to be shielded after initiating an Accelerated Possession procedure: Any mischievous thing that he does to the tenant is usually not punished by Police because the tenant "will be leaving soon anyway".
Example: In "Can't pay? We'll take it away", the sudden eviction of the Kumar family occurs after their furniture and beds had been stolen. An agent had recently moved them to a small flat when the house that they were renting was sold. There had been a 12 month agreement on the house but it was sold after only 6 months. Furniture and beds were lost during relocation because the house was locked up before there was time to complete removals. (The "Can’t pay?" camera moves through the Kumars' new flat and shows mattresses on the floor.)
Hard-working driver Mr Kumar says that he had refused to sign a new lease on the flat because his furniture was never returned to him. (The agent says that Kumar owes a large sum because the rent for the small flat is "£500 per week" and several weeks have elapsed.)
The Kumars had nowhere else to go when the house was sold and they intended to comply with a county court letter stipulating a date in the near future for vacating the flat. They did not know that new legislation supporting Section 21 could be used by their agent to fool the High Court into evicting them immediately, on the grounds of unpaid rent. (It seems that the agent must have completed a Section 21 Notice. Seeing a copy of that Notice, a High Court official would have assumed that Kumar had signed an Assured Short-hold, and so issued the warrant for his eviction.)
Given the speed of these High Court evictions, there can be no time to ascertain whether the landlords have fulfilled the conditions that apply to them. For example, an amendment to Section 21 demands that a landlord must have secured the tenant's deposit with a DPS before he may issue a Section 21 Notice. (This would have been impossible if Mr Kumar had not signed a lease on the flat. - Or did the High court 'extend' his lease obligations at the house as if his residence at the small flat was legally the same thing? - That wouldn't be surprising, because everything is already weighted against the tenant in a way that violates legal principles. Quick-fixes are the order of the day since Section 21 was inaugurated.)
The High Court bailiffs must leave Kumar, now in tears, with his wife and two children on the street. They wish him, "good luck".
Also on "Can't Pay?" is the eviction of Mrs. Ahmed, a single refugee who walks with a cane and knows no English. The bailiff says that 70% of the people they evict seem to be at risk.
August 2016: Irene is a full-time working mother who supports two children, and her second eviction bewilders the bailiffs (because they still think that all functions of the courts abide by a presumption of innocence.) She is on the street again: "back where I was".
In another episode, the bailiffs find that they are obliged to evict a small boy on a life-support machine. Only a legal anomaly would create such unhappy situations so often.
Have gov.uk co-opted your Google search results? When this blog was revised in 2015, any Google searches for "section 21" or "accelerated possession" produced one or two Shelter links and lots of private sector advertisements for getting Accelerated Possession done by lawyers. - Lawyers had realized that the result of every Section 21 case is guaranteed, giving them opportunity for easy earnings by offering to 'do all the paperwork' for landlords for a fixed fee (which would be paid via the court by the tenant!) However, those Google searches today bring a screen full of links to government websites where the clarity of information encourages landlords to adopt a DIY approach to Accelerated Possession: to use the on-line facilities for it. Those embarrassing adverts have disappeared. (Searches for "tenancy" and "lease" also now put gov.uk results at the top of the page, although mixed results are shown by browsers in different parts of the UK.)
 |
How a need for votes can erode long-held principles: 'This will get us some votes: 'Right to buy'! It will create a new type of privileged category but the masses will just see it as a charitable sort of thing!"'
A few years later: "We can withdraw 'Right to a fair hearing' and then landlords can simply boot them out! I smell more votes coming our way!" |
Introduction
In 1988, MPs decided to "encourage landlords in the housing market" even if fair-play was no longer to be safeguarded. Council homes were being sold and some MPs claimed that tenancy disputes were a hindrance to growth of the private letting industry. (It all began when 'Right to Buy' was letting a part of the population acquire properties for as little as a few hundred Pounds each. Neighbourly relationships began to break up as people then sold their properties for the average market prices, making big profit. Soon a scheme was needed to help new landlords cope with unruly tenants in newly-fragmented communities.)The prevention of any more tenancy disputes would be achieved with a stealthy manoeuvre. Where a law in favour of all landlords would have been noticed as plainly unfair/dangerous, a new type of lease could work things quietly. The newly designed lease would seem innocuous but the landlord using it would have access to a new type of 'procedure' for its termination. The existence of this procedure would not be obvious to the tenant at the time of signing the lease.
The procedure was implemented in 1989 and an international human right (i.e. the presumption of innocence in all court cases) was subverted stealthily. There was no reaction and, even today, nobody knows what 'Accelerated Possession' is until it happens to them personally.
If a Section 21 notice to quit has not been observed within two months, the landlord usually opts to submit a Claim for Accelerated Possession at the court, and the tenant will receive a court order with invoice requiring payment of between £175 and more than £450. Although there is no hearing, the landlord can employ a lawyer to do the paperwork, raising the expense for the tenant.There is evidence that 'justice' became a commodity when Accelerated Possession was made available: Until recently (2017), the results of a Google search for "Section 21" were dominated by advertisements for 'possession services' at fixed prices. (The judge's 'decision' is known ahead of the case, so the outcome is guaranteed and lawyers can offer to do the whole thing for a fixed amount.) Now, Google results give priority to Gov.uk sites but the legal situation remains, i.e. 'justice' is bought by the landlord.
In order to fool the tenant and convey an illusion of normal court function, a judge can write notes on a possession order such as: "Having seen the evidence in this case...". The tenant will then think that the judge has 'thought things through', or the tenant will assume that "It's the Law" and forget the whole thing. The tenant is more likely, then, to simply pay up and go away quietly.
For some years, the courts have offered colourful pamphlets that urge landlords to claim Accelerated Possession easily on-line. More and more have begun to realize that government has given them a distinct advantage through Section 21. (Landlords have also been enjoying tax relief and other perks.) Not surprisingly, buying to let has become more profitable than any other form of investment, some making 14 times what they invested: guard/money.
Section 21 has been extremely helpful to buy-to-let investors: 1. It makes tenants nervous. They are much less inclined to challenge rent increases. 2. Landlords can concentrate on business expansion rather than looking after the small needs of existing tenants. Any sign of complaint can be swiftly countered with a Section 21 Notice. (There's no obligation to follow through with Possession, and the tenant can simply live in suspense after receiving notice.) 3. Landlords can move people out (or 'offer' alternative lets) as and when required, with no risk of legal backlash. 4. As discussed below, landlords can issue Section 21 Notices on day 1 of the lease, simply to intimidate new tenants and/or to rob them of their 2 month notice should termination be desired immediately after the first, 'assured' 6 months.The appearance of Section 21 did "encourage" (a word used by the Minister of Housing) landlords a lot. It takes away the element of risk for those who would become multi-owners, by giving all the risk to the tenants. The worldly-wise quickly understood how their new power can help them expand (see The Guardian.)
By 2014, people were becoming homeless at rates never seen before: "Every 11 minutes a family in Britain find themselves homeless" says Shelter on facebook (15/07/14.) That national housing charity now spends a lot of time advising the casualties of Accelerated Possession. Local charities try to pick up the pieces by helping to find accommodation for the newly homeless, but sometimes there is a need for emergency housing. Of course, personal possessions are often lost because it can take at least 3 months to find another home, even with the help of a charity. Only the other day, I saw my previous landlord's flat-bed truck carrying yet another load of household items (which always seem to include toys) to the city dump.
"Britain's Homeless Families" reported a tripling in the number of people being made homeless by landlords in 2014. "It's now the single biggest cause of homelessness in England." BBC One 27/06/14. Also see: www.theguardian: Eviction rates have doubled since they wrote about a "6-year high".Most tenants are taken by surprise when Accelerated Possession disrupts their lives because it departs from legal tradition (where conflicts of interest are settled in hearings.) The tenant becomes simply the target of a court-mediated removal service.
There might be victimization during the final weeks of the tenancy because the court admits no information from the tenant, e.g. about the landlord's behaviour (see the Conclusion below.) Intimidation and harassment can get worse after the court order has been issued, and police will tend to just smooth things over (e.g. advise avoidance of the slippery landlord's bullies) because the tenant 'will be leaving anyway'.
A new development: the High Court sides immediately with a landlord who claims that non-payment of rent has occurred since giving notice to a tenant.
In TV Channel 5's 'Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away' (Friday 27/02/15), a High Court bailiff mentioned "an avalanche of evictions" across London recently as landlords discover a new thirst for property, and decide to sell up or increase rent. The bailiff explained that landlords can now obtain instant eviction if a tenant stops paying rent after receiving a Section 21 notice. A woman was called from her workplace to her flat because her locks were being changed. (High Court bailiffs act within 24 hours of a landlord's appeal.) She was offered just one opportunity to collect more possessions at a later time. Her neighbour appeared and said that she had been an exemplary part of the community for 11 years. The tenant now takes a big risk if, after being told to move, she/he holds back money for a deposit on a new place.Since 2015, another surprise can be the sudden appearance of High Court bailiffs when employees of the court have said that the tenant should wait to hear from normal bailiffs to agree a date for possession. The sudden appearance of High Court bailiffs might also happen if the tenant has no proof of payment of rent since receiving his Possession Order.
Another recent development: The work of one lawyer was posted on Shelter's Facebook page in June 2015. She has saved some people from homelessness because she happened to know that a judge is able to vary a possession order into a 'suspended order'. This might be good news if this knowledge spreads. (The judge in my hearing knew virtually nothing about Section 21 and was guided by the lawyer for my landlord.) However, surely justice would be better served if the courts reasserted that fair hearings should come first, order variations later.
N.B. If a tenant attends a follow-up (post-Order) hearing without a lawyer, he/she is treated as the object of the proceedings: directed to a seat at a distance from the judge and landlord, and told when to listen, when to read the court invoice etc. (almost like a criminal in the dock.)
Use of the word "Accelerated" in this context seems to be a ploy. When a dog runs in circles, it is accelerating. However, would we call it an 'accelerated dog'?September 2017: Attaching amendments to Section 21 might help shield some of the blows but only a complete re-think of the system might lead us back to normality. In a story I heard today, a landlord made the mistake of renting to a person who couldn't afford a deposit. Then the tenant turned the flat into a booze and cannabis lounge for all and sundry to visit round-the-clock, and she stopped paying rent. The landlord had no ordinary way to get rid of her because Accelerated possession was not available to him with no proof of secured deposit!
An excerpt from a blog about a homicide case (bit.ly/mugTaxi) shows why it is important that society safeguards the 'presumption of innocence' and that this can only be done if the right to a hearing is protected for every court case:Some legal history
When Frederick Aiken attempted to save Mary Surratt from the gallows in 1865, the right to a jury trial was being ignored by military tribunals. The prosecutor was moving stridently against Mary and calling witnesses who were obviously enjoying 'gifts' which he had organized. In desperation, Aiken procured a writ of habeas corpus in the middle of the night from an official who was still his friend. (Even his fiancée had ostracized him for not refusing to be Surratt's defense.) The writ should have made it possible to secure a hearing with civilian jury, but Mary received notice in the morning that she was to be hanged within 12 hours. - The new US President had suspended her writ immediately. Mary's son didn't come out of hiding and she was executed in his place. Aiken changed profession (became the first Editor at the Washington Post) and then persuaded the Supreme Court to protect the right to a jury hearing henceforth, even during war.
Recap: The procedure
If two months have elapsed since a landlord issued a Section 21 Notice, he has the option to submit a Claim form for Accelerated Possession (a CFFAP) to the court. If he does that, the tenant will receive a copy of the CFFAP with a court fee of £175, followed by a court order. The landlord's claim proceeds as if the tenant is being taken to court but is presumed to be unsuccessful, so a hearing before a judge is not arranged. (Another way to look at it: the case 'accelerates' away at the moment when a hearing would normally take place, and the outcome is always the same: the landlord wins.)
If a landlord opts to employ a solicitor to submit his CFFAP, the court passes his legal fees to the tenant. This piece of legislation, with no opportunity for defence of the person being sued, is unique. A landlord's termination of any other type of lease is settled in an open hearing where a judge makes decisions and assigns costs in a fair way.
If a landlord opts to employ a solicitor to submit his CFFAP, the court passes his legal fees to the tenant. This piece of legislation, with no opportunity for defence of the person being sued, is unique. A landlord's termination of any other type of lease is settled in an open hearing where a judge makes decisions and assigns costs in a fair way.
When the tenant first takes occupancy of the property, 6 months of tenancy are guaranteed by the Assured short hold lease. However, some landlords issue a Section 21 Notice as soon as the tenant moves in, in order to rob him/her of the prescribed 2 month notice that would normally take effect at the end of the 'assured' months. It benefits the tenant to know when the landlord really does want his property back, and is not just issuing Section 21 Notices as a form of intimidation. The serious matter of keeping a roof over one's head has become a bit of a guessing game for people with unprincipled landlords.
When a tenant receives a copy of a CFFAP in the mail, he/she will be advised not to return its Response Form, because that will not delay the court order, and can only cause a judge to arrange a 'hearing'. N.B. This hearing is paid for by the tenant and can only allow discussion of a delay of eviction. (Recently, Shelter has stopped advising all tenants in this way, because at least one lawyer has managed to persuade judges, during hearings, to 'suspend' some possession orders.)
After seeing that I owed £458 as a result of my landlord's claim (a solicitor had charged £283 to fill in his CFFAP), it struck me that the judge knew nothing about me. (The landlord is not asked to explain his motive for termination.) I went to the courthouse and a clerk there suggested that I write a letter that she would pass to the judge. (She was assuming that I was 'innocent until proven guilty'.) The clerk and her senior were unaware that 'acceleration' means that any interaction with the tenant is avoided until a court order is written, even though the main purpose of a court has always been to provide hearings. (Surely, a hearing is the only time when being regarded initially as 'innocent' might affect any decisions. Office personnel at the courts are mostly unaware that a 'decision' is dealt automatically during Accelerated possession: It is simply an exchange of paperwork.)
Computer records at my local courthouse were not up to date and a court order had already been issued when the sympathetic clerk took a letter from me. A week later, I was surprised to receive notice to appear for a hearing. I thought that the judge had seen reason to let me defend myself. (He had adopted my letter as a substitute for form N244, completed as an application for a hearing.) However, I discovered first-hand why Shelter had advised me to avoid any hearing which arises from Accelerated possession: It was simply a few minutes’ ritual during which the judge, guided by the landlord’s solicitor, made two statements:
After seeing that I owed £458 as a result of my landlord's claim (a solicitor had charged £283 to fill in his CFFAP), it struck me that the judge knew nothing about me. (The landlord is not asked to explain his motive for termination.) I went to the courthouse and a clerk there suggested that I write a letter that she would pass to the judge. (She was assuming that I was 'innocent until proven guilty'.) The clerk and her senior were unaware that 'acceleration' means that any interaction with the tenant is avoided until a court order is written, even though the main purpose of a court has always been to provide hearings. (Surely, a hearing is the only time when being regarded initially as 'innocent' might affect any decisions. Office personnel at the courts are mostly unaware that a 'decision' is dealt automatically during Accelerated possession: It is simply an exchange of paperwork.)
Computer records at my local courthouse were not up to date and a court order had already been issued when the sympathetic clerk took a letter from me. A week later, I was surprised to receive notice to appear for a hearing. I thought that the judge had seen reason to let me defend myself. (He had adopted my letter as a substitute for form N244, completed as an application for a hearing.) However, I discovered first-hand why Shelter had advised me to avoid any hearing which arises from Accelerated possession: It was simply a few minutes’ ritual during which the judge, guided by the landlord’s solicitor, made two statements:
- A court order for accelerated possession is never set aside.
- A court order for accelerated possession cannot be varied to postpone possession (should the tenant want more time) unless the tenant can prove that he/she will suffer extreme hardship (beyond homelessness and debt) because of immediate possession.
At close of hearing, a new costs invoice was presented for £687 and I was told to read it. It seemed unfair that the expensive 'hearing' had been the judge’s idea, but he only remarked that I could have cancelled it.
Defence against possession of a rented home was removed when the Section 21 Act of 1988 took effect in January 1989, and the Assured short hold lease was to become the norm in England. There was a political motive: to "encourage" private landlords by making termination an expense-free and expedited service (see footnote *.) The new ease of removal of tenants was said to protect those tenants from high costs in courtroom disputes. However, such tenants had never received costs unless it was shown that their behaviour had justified possession.
Clearly, Section 21 has removed the 'checks' in the system. With no possibility of intervention by a judge, a landlord no longer has any reason to be cautious when terminating tenancies. In fact, situations arise now where a landlord would be foolish not to evict as soon as possible. e.g. A pregnant tenant made a complaint to a town council that her flat was damp. The landlord could see no easy way to solve the problem and was wise to evict her straight away, before enough time could pass for her to develop a "revenge eviction" case. (Shelter has coordinated the suing of some landlords over revenge evictions.)
The politicians had not concerned themselves with costs when they created Accelerated possession. A landlord is still entitled to ask a solicitor to do his paperwork. (A legal contest is in process, so a solicitor can be employed.) The tenant always pays for that solicitor, even though he/she receives no opportunity for judicial consideration. Not only did my landlord raise my initial costs from £175 to £458, but he did more damage by bringing the solicitor to the 'hearing' post court order, and again by applying for bailiff services two days later "just in case". My final costs near £800 can hardly be considered more benign than the zero costs I received after a tenancy dispute in 2004, where the landlord secured possession but the judge considered me innocent. (That lease was not Assured Short-hold, because of a shared electricity meter.)
Defence against possession of a rented home was removed when the Section 21 Act of 1988 took effect in January 1989, and the Assured short hold lease was to become the norm in England. There was a political motive: to "encourage" private landlords by making termination an expense-free and expedited service (see footnote *.) The new ease of removal of tenants was said to protect those tenants from high costs in courtroom disputes. However, such tenants had never received costs unless it was shown that their behaviour had justified possession.
Clearly, Section 21 has removed the 'checks' in the system. With no possibility of intervention by a judge, a landlord no longer has any reason to be cautious when terminating tenancies. In fact, situations arise now where a landlord would be foolish not to evict as soon as possible. e.g. A pregnant tenant made a complaint to a town council that her flat was damp. The landlord could see no easy way to solve the problem and was wise to evict her straight away, before enough time could pass for her to develop a "revenge eviction" case. (Shelter has coordinated the suing of some landlords over revenge evictions.)
The politicians had not concerned themselves with costs when they created Accelerated possession. A landlord is still entitled to ask a solicitor to do his paperwork. (A legal contest is in process, so a solicitor can be employed.) The tenant always pays for that solicitor, even though he/she receives no opportunity for judicial consideration. Not only did my landlord raise my initial costs from £175 to £458, but he did more damage by bringing the solicitor to the 'hearing' post court order, and again by applying for bailiff services two days later "just in case". My final costs near £800 can hardly be considered more benign than the zero costs I received after a tenancy dispute in 2004, where the landlord secured possession but the judge considered me innocent. (That lease was not Assured Short-hold, because of a shared electricity meter.)
Conclusion
Accelerated possession can bring hard times for an unemployed person, because 98% of estate agents will not show rooms to anyone with an income below £12,000 p.a.. The £175 court fee becomes unavoidable because it's usually impossible to secure new accommodation within 2 months of receiving a Section 21 notice.
In my case, the landlord, his sons and employees started a three-month campaign of hostility after submission of his CFFAP. I made a diary of their antisocial acts (e.g. early morning gang visits, pounding on the door and trying to force entry, removal of bicycle, shouted insults, turning off of utilities, false reports of non-payment of rent to the City Council) with six police reference numbers. If my lease had not been Assured short hold, I could have presented the diary in court. On one occasion, two police officers were visibly shaken by the unkind reception they'd received from the landlord's gang at his office behind the building. They warned me to stay away from them while working toward a relocation.
A landlord is acting with cruelty if he issues a Section 21 notice to every new tenant, but it is his legal prerogative to do so. After the first six 'assured' months of habitation, the new tenant can never know whether to respond to the notice by moving out a.s.a.p.. He/she lives in fear of receiving a copy of a CFFAP, a pen-stroke away from ruin for some people. If that landlord wants the tenant to go away but shows a token of 'mercy' by giving further, informal, notice before submitting a CFFAP, the tenant will probably have very little time in which to find accommodation.
______________________________________________________________________________
In my case, the landlord, his sons and employees started a three-month campaign of hostility after submission of his CFFAP. I made a diary of their antisocial acts (e.g. early morning gang visits, pounding on the door and trying to force entry, removal of bicycle, shouted insults, turning off of utilities, false reports of non-payment of rent to the City Council) with six police reference numbers. If my lease had not been Assured short hold, I could have presented the diary in court. On one occasion, two police officers were visibly shaken by the unkind reception they'd received from the landlord's gang at his office behind the building. They warned me to stay away from them while working toward a relocation.
A landlord is acting with cruelty if he issues a Section 21 notice to every new tenant, but it is his legal prerogative to do so. After the first six 'assured' months of habitation, the new tenant can never know whether to respond to the notice by moving out a.s.a.p.. He/she lives in fear of receiving a copy of a CFFAP, a pen-stroke away from ruin for some people. If that landlord wants the tenant to go away but shows a token of 'mercy' by giving further, informal, notice before submitting a CFFAP, the tenant will probably have very little time in which to find accommodation.
______________________________________________________________________________
* The Minister of Housing says that, in the 25 years since the enactment of Section 21, the private rental sector has grown. In 2012, it was 17% of the housing market, compared to 9% in 1988. However, the figures may indicate no actual increase in renting if other parts of the housing market (e.g. buying and selling) have diminished. Also, even if we concede that there might be more renting going on now, the cause for the growth might be explained by other new trends (e.g. the shortage of houses for first-time buyers, the selling off of council housing, an increase in the number of students renting, etc.), rather than to the crafty invention of the Assured short hold lease. The Minister says that expensive terminations are rare, but they can plainly do harm to the "few" unfortunate victims. It would be interesting to know if there has been a greater total number of terminations since Accelerated Possession became available. Exploitative landlords have benefited most because they can intimidate poor tenants by issuing Section 21 Notices (with no genuine intention to do Possession) and then neglect them with no fear of reprisal. Also, profiteering by removal of tenants now has nothing to stand in its way.
p.s.
Two years later, I read on Shelter's facebook page that a landlord now
may submit a Claim form for Accelerated Possession only if the tenant's
deposit has been secured with a tenancy deposit protection scheme. My
landlord was not in the habit of securing deposits, but I doubt that
things would have gone much better had I known about the amendment.
How the Section 21 Act could be amended
The procedure for termination of an Assured Short hold lease is unusual because it sets up a legal contest but there is no open hearing and the tenant is presumed to be the loser. A landlord is able to use the Procedure in a way that hurts a tenant by more than was envisioned when the Section 21 Act took effect. He can do so mainly by multiplying costs with solicitor fees. The ability to harm an innocent tenant with high costs would be removed if the following amendments were made.
- Remove the right of the landlord to employ a solicitor to complete the Claim form for accelerated possession. The form is not a complicated one and there is a colourful brochure in the court building which describes an easy way to submit on-line.
- Remove the right of the landlord to bring a solicitor to any hearing subsequent to issue of the Court order to give possession. The hearing is unusually simple: the tenant is directed to a seat chosen by the judge and informed that court orders for giving possession are never set aside. The tenant is then asked if there is a desire to request more time to give possession, on condition that immediate proof be presented of extreme hardship caused by immediate loss of accommodation. A new costs total is calculated and the bill is handed to the tenant.
- Prevent the setting of any hearing subsequent to court order unless the correct form is used by a tenant to apply for one. That form should bear a warning regarding costs because the judge never rules in a tenant's favour (except perhaps regarding a request for extra time). I was summoned to a hearing because a clerk at the court suggested that I could pass a letter to the judge, in the hope that it would affect his response to the landlord’s original Claim form. The innocent clerk’s computer record was not up to date, and the court order was already issued. The judge then read my letter and decided to set a hearing. I thought it was my chance to defend myself but it was not. A court fee for the hearing, and more landlord solicitor charges, were added to my bill.
