Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The purpose of the Deregulation Act 2015, as the name suggests, is to try to clarify and simplify a number of areas of law, cut red tape and repeal obsolete legislation. From a property perspective, it is questionable whether this has been achieved
and arguably the provisions of DA 2015 add to the regulatory burden for landlords of residential property in particular.
The most widely publicised change is in relation to the provisions governing the management and termination of assured shorthold tenancies. The tenancy deposit regulations contained within the provisions of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) and extended
by the Localism Act 2011 were far from straightforward and have resulted in a number of cases coming before the courts. The provisions of DA 2015 have brought some clarity and a degree of common sense to the law surrounding the treatment of
tenancy deposits, which is particularly welcome in cases where the deposit was received before the regulations came into effect.
DA 2015 also introduces provisions that prevent a landlord serving a notice under HA 2004, s 21 (section 21 notice) in certain circumstances where disrepair has been reported. It also gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe the form of
notice to be served, and to impose certain minimum requirements on landlords in relation to:
Some of the less well-publicised changes include:
Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues  EWCA Civ 669,  All ER (D) 135 (Jun) and Charalambous and another v NG and another  EWCA Civ 1604,  All ER (D) 175 (Dec) highlighted some of the problems landlords face due to a
lack of clarity in the initial regulations. The regulations caught out many landlords who, often in all good faith, would place a deposit in a personal bank account, or would correctly protect the deposit at the outset of the tenancy but fail
to re-protect it when the tenancy became periodic.
DA 2015 restores a measure of common sense while trying to maintain the protection provided by the tenancy deposit regulations in the first place. The decision in Superstrike in particular was surprising in that it arguably went beyond
what was intended by the tenancy deposit regulations. It is not uncommon for a situation to arise where the fixed term of an assured shorthold tenancy will expire and the tenant may ask for a couple more months in the property. The decision
in Superstrike meant that in this situation, if the landlord allowed the tenant to stay on for a period of time but did not withdraw and re-register the deposit, they would not be able to serve a section 21 notice unless the deposit
was returned to the tenant.
The tenancy deposit regulations were designed to protect the tenant from the unscrupulous landlord who had no intention of returning the deposit from the moment it was handed over. It is difficult to see why all of those landlords who, in good
faith, took a deposit at the outset and protected it in accordance with the regulations at their own cost, should be punished because the deposit was not re-registered upon expiry of the contractual term of the tenancy.DA 2015 addresses this
imbalance by clarifying that once the deposit has been received and correctly protected, it will not need to be re-protected upon expiry of the contractual term.
The question of whether a section 21 notice expires on the correct date has been a ripe area for dispute for quite some time. The decision in Spencer v Taylor  EWCA Civ 1600,  All ER (D) 230 (Dec), while unexpected, widened
the scope for reliance on HA 2004, s 21(1)(b) which was generally considered to be easier to use and less prescriptive than HA 2004, 21(4).
The decision in Spencer v Taylor has been extended by DA 2015 to tenancies which were periodic from the outset, to which HA 2004, s 21(4) would apply. From 1 October 2015, therefore, whether the tenancy is for a fixed term initially or
is periodic from the outset, the section 21 notice will no longer need to specify the last day of a period of a tenancy. This should reduce the scope for dispute over the validity of a landlord’s section 21 notice. In an attempt to balance
the interests of landlord and tenant, DA 2015 also includes an express provision that the tenant will be entitled to a refund of any overpaid rent where a tenancy comes to an end mid-way through a period.
However, to prevent us getting carried away with the idea that deregulation means what it says, DA 2015, s 38 allows the Secretary of State to introduce more ‘prescribed legal requirements’ in relation to the condition of the
property generally. While it is a little difficult to make an exact comparison until these prescribed requirements have been published, the wording of DA 2015, s 38 suggests that the requirements could be quite wide-ranging and onerous for
a landlord. If a landlord is in breach of the requirements, it will be prohibited from serving a section 21 notice—which brings into question the need for further protection for tenants, which is provided by DA 2015, s 33 regarding
retaliatory evictions. However, we will have to wait and see what the extent of the ‘prescribed legal requirements’ is before that comparison may be taken too far.
The provisions in relation to retaliatory evictions are troubling. DA 2015 provides little guidance as to the substance of an ‘adequate’ response from the landlord. Clearly, much will turn on the tenant’s perception of the severity
of the condition of the dwelling, and there is every possibility that the landlord and the tenant will disagree about:
The nature of the accelerated possession process is that the section 21 notice is non-fault based and ought to provide a swift, cost effective solution for a landlord who needs to recover possession of a property. It is quite possible that if
a property is genuinely in disrepair, the landlord will be precluded from serving a section 21 notice in any event in view of the prescribed requirements that will be introduced under the powers vested in DA 2015, s 38 on the Secretary
of State. However, even if the property was in disrepair and a landlord was able to proceed with the eviction process, the order for possession and subsequent eviction does not affect a tenant’s right to claim compensation for disrepair
where the landlord is in breach of its contractual and statutory duties.
That being so, I am not sure these new provisions are either appropriate or necessary. I anticipate a significant increase in the number of hearings being listed as a result of this provision, where there is dispute over the validity of the tenant’s
complaint and the extent of the landlord’s response. It potentially allows a streetwise tenant to extend the possession process by months, if not years, and ultimately even if the landlord is entirely vindicated there will be little
prospect of recovering any unpaid rent or potentially significant court costs.
Lawyers, whether for landlord or tenant, will need to ensure they are on top of the detail in relation to tenancy deposits—when they were taken, when they were protected and when the prescribed information was served. Landlords will need
to ensure they respond to complaints promptly and thoroughly and tenants need to ensure they make their landlord aware of any concerns regarding the state of the property. For lawyers, whereas one could say with a degree of certainty whether
a possession claim under a section 21 notice was likely to be successful, in some cases it will now be far more uncertain. There may often be cases where, if one of the grounds of The Housing Act 1988, Sch 2 can be made out, the merits of
proceeding with a HA 1988, s 8 notice and conventional possession proceedings will outweigh the benefits of using the accelerated possession process.
The next three years will be something of a transition period, as the new rules will apply only to those assured shorthold tenancies that commence after the relevant provision came into effect. However, after three years, going forward the provisions
will apply to all assured shorthold tenancies, irrespective of the date they were entered into.
Interviewed by Nicola Laver.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234