Commercial Property

ATTENTION LANDLORDS- Changes with the Upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill

Posted on August 7, 2025August 12, 2025 by Priyanka Kumar

As housing law continues to evolve, the proposed Renters’ Rights Bill is expected to come into effect later this year or in early 2026 and set to bring significant changes to the eviction process in the private rental sector. These reforms aim to strengthen tenant protections but also introduce new challenges for landlords seeking to regain possession of their properties. Understanding these changes is crucial for landlords, tenants, and solicitors.

Background: Eviction Under Current Law

In England and Wales, landlords commonly use two legal routes to evict tenants:

Section 21 Notices: Often called “no-fault” evictions, Section 21 allows landlords to regain possession without needing to provide a reason, provided the fixed term of the tenancy has ended or a periodic tenancy exists.
Section 8 Notices: Used when landlords allege specific breaches of the tenancy agreement, such as rent arrears or damage to the property. This route requires proving fault on the tenant’s part.

Both procedures often are dealt with at court hearings if tenants contest the eviction, with the landlord bearing the burden of following strict procedural rules.

What Does the Upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill Propose?

The Renters’ Rights Bill seeks to overhaul eviction processes to offer greater security to tenants and curb what some perceive as unfair evictions. The key proposed changes impacting landlords include:

1. Abolition or Reform of Section 21 “No-Fault” Evictions

One of the most anticipated reforms is the removal or significant limitation of Section 21 evictions. Under the new bill:
Landlords may no longer be able to evict tenants without demonstrating mandatory or discretionary grounds to do so.
Tenancies could become more secure, potentially transitioning into indefinite agreements unless there is a breach by the tenant.
This change would mean landlords must rely on fault-based grounds—primarily through Section 8 proceedings—to regain possession.

2. Stricter Grounds for Section 8 Evictions

The bill proposes to tighten the requirements for Section 8 notices by:

Narrowing the acceptable grounds for eviction.
Raising the evidential standards landlords must meet.
Potentially extending notice periods to provide tenants more time to respond or rectify issues.
This would make fault-based evictions more procedurally complex and lengthier, increasing the risk and legal cost for landlords.

3. Enhanced Tenant Protections During Proceedings

The legislation aims to improve tenants’ rights during eviction cases, including:

Improved access to legal advice.
Introduction of pre-action protocols requiring landlords to engage in dispute resolution efforts before commencing court proceedings.
Such measures could delay or deter eviction actions, placing additional burdens on landlords.

So What Challenges Will Landlords Will Face?

The effect of these changes will create several challenges including:

Increased Difficulty in Regaining Possession: Without Section 21 as a straightforward tool, landlords will face longer and more uncertain eviction processes.
Higher Costs: More complex procedures and extended timelines will increase legal and administrative costs.
Greater Risk of Protracted Disputes: Enhanced tenant rights and requirements for alternative dispute resolution may prolong disagreements.

What Advice Will Solicitors Give to Landlords?

Solicitors specialising in landlord-tenant law are likely to advise landlords to:

Maintain Full Documentation: Keeping detailed records of rent payments, property condition reports, and communications is essential to support any fault-based eviction claim.
Engage Early with Tenants: Proactive communication and attempts to resolve disputes before court can help comply with pre-action protocols and avoid costly litigation.

What further possible legislative developments could happen?

Introduction of indefinite or longer-term tenancy agreements, replacing fixed-term leases.
Mandatory pre-action protocols, requiring landlords to make genuine efforts to resolve disputes before applying to the court.
Enhanced enforcement powers for regulatory bodies overseeing housing standards and tenancy disputes.
Potential changes to notice periods, making them longer and more tenant friendly.
Increased penalties for landlords who fail to comply with new legal requirements, such as deposit protection, gas and EPC certification, or property safety standards.

Conclusion

The upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill signals a transformative shift in the landlord-tenant relationship, prioritising tenant security and fair treatment. While this reflects positive social goals, it introduces substantive challenges for landlords seeking to manage and regain control of their properties. Navigating this new landscape will require careful legal guidance, thorough preparation, and a willingness to engage constructively with tenants.

Here at Wellers, we can help ensure compliance with evolving regulations and to protect your interests in an increasingly tenant-friendly legal environment.

Do not hesitate to contact Priyanka Kumar on 01732 446367 or Jonathan Tyler on 01732 446361 or email enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com

Licensing Houses in Multiple Occupation – Ignorance of the Law is No Defence

Posted on December 3, 2020June 10, 2025 by Wellers

Landlords who fail to license houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) commit a serious criminal offence and can expect to be hit hard in the pocket. In making that point, the Upper Tribunal (UT) emphasised that stiff financial penalties are generally required in such cases as a deterrent to others.

The case concerned a landlord who let six bedrooms in his former family home as bed sitting rooms. There was no dispute that the property was an HMO and, after discovering that it was unlicensed, the local authority notified him that he had committed an offence under Section 72 of the Housing Act 2004. As an alternative to prosecution, the council imposed on the landlord a civil financial penalty of £10,000.

In upholding the landlord’s appeal against that penalty, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) accepted that he was unaware of the licensing regime and had no knowledge of the term HMO. On being notified that a licence was required, he had applied for one immediately. He had also spent considerable sums on swiftly making safety improvements to the property.

Noting that the landlord’s wife was suffering from cancer and that he was under considerable stress, the FTT expressed surprise that the council had seen fit to impose a penalty. It was also unimpressed by the council’s delay in processing his licence application. Overall, it found that the threat of prosecution had served its purpose and that a financial penalty was unnecessary and unreasonable.

In upholding the council’s appeal against that decision, the UT noted that prudent landlords make inquiries to ascertain their legal obligations and that ignorance of the licensing regime is no defence. The landlord had no reasonable excuse for not having a licence and, in deciding that no penalty should be imposed, the FTT had taken an exceptional course in what was an unexceptional case.

Parliament intended that the offence should be treated as serious and there was a need to impose deterrent penalties, even on non-professional landlords with only one or two properties. The landlord’s belated licence application afforded him only limited mitigation. In the light of his personal circumstances, however, the UT reduced his penalty to £4,000.

We advise both Landlords and tenants on the full range of matters including tenancy agreements, evictions, breach of tenancy and landlord & tenant disputes. Please do get in contact.

Commercial leases – when time is of the essence

Posted on June 24, 2019June 10, 2025 by Joe Reeves

Where time is of the essence in relation to the exercise of a right, the failure to exercise that right within the time limit specified means that the right is lost. An example of this might be where a contractor fails to complete works by a certain deadline, in which case it may lose the contractual right to complete those works and the innocent party will be entitled to terminate the contract.

What is the position then in relation to commercial leases, in particular in relation to the exercise of a break clause, or triggering a rent review clause?

Rent Review

It is important to ascertain the position and to comply with any deadlines as failure to do so could be severe. For a landlord, failure to exercise a rent review clause in time may mean it cannot operate the rent review and loses out on a higher rent, for a potentially significant period of time. For a tenant, failure to respond to any rent review notice in time may result in the rent automatically being increased to the figure proposed by the landlord, even if unrealistic and well above market rate.

The general presumption is that time is not of the essence in relation to the operation of a rent review clause. However, this will be displaced in the following instances:

Where time is stated to be of the essence in the rent review clause;
Where the wording set out in the rent review clause is sufficiently emphatic to show that time was intended to be of the essence (for instance, where the clause states that no other date or deadline is acceptable);
Where the rent review clause contains other indications that are consistent only with time being of the essence (for instance, if the clause sets a deadline for service of a tenant’s counter-notice and then spells out the consequences if the tenant fails to meet that deadline); and
Where the lease contains other provisions evidencing that the parties intended the rent review deadlines to be strictly observed (for example, where there is an interrelationship between the exercise of a rent review clause and another deadline in the lease, such as the exercise of a break clause).

It is the general presumption that time is not of the essence in relation to rent review and therefore not uncommon for landlords to delay in the implementation of rent review, particularly in a stagnant market where they will realistically not be able to get a better rent.

Break Clauses

By contrast to rent review, time will always be of the essence in relation to the operation of a break clause, unless it is specifically stated not to be.

Failure to operate a break clause in time could have severe repercussions for a tenant wishing to vacate as the lease will continue. The Courts have traditionally taken a strict approach towards compliance with break notices by tenants and therefore it is imperative that no deadlines are missed. For instance, if a lease requires 6 months’ notice of exercise of a break clause, failure to provide 6 months’ notice will mean that the right is lost and the tenant will be unable to break the lease.

It is good practice for any tenant in negotiating a lease, to carefully consider the wording of any proposed break notice. In addition, the tenant should seek to ensure that the validity of a break notice is not contingent upon any pre-conditions, for instance the vacant possession of the property. In practice, this will not always be achievable and will be a matter of negotiation between the parties when the lease is agreed.

Where there is a dispute as to whether time is of the essence, the starting point will always be to consider the wording of the lease, as well as the factual circumstances existing between the parties at the time the lease was agreed.

This article is not intended and should not be relied upon for legal advice, Should you wish to discuss your matter, please contact Joe Reeves of our Litigation Department on 0207 481 6383 or joe.reeves@wellerslawgroup.com.