A recent landlord-served Section 21 notice vs assured shorthold tenant contest was fought at county court level (London) over the landlord’s failure to issue a gas safety certificate at the outset of the tenancy. The landlord lost his case, then appealed it and lost again. The appeal judgement sets quite an extraordinary precedent for future cases of contesting a Section 21 eviction over the same grounds. Follow this link to:
Both judges ruled in agreement that the changes made to the Deregulation Act in 2015 made it mandatory for the landlord to have ALREADY issued the tenant in a gas using property with a gas safety certificate WHEN S/HE SIGNED THE FIRST CONTRACT OF THE TENANCY.
Also, they ruled that another/new safety certificate CANNOT be served to rectify this omission in retrospect. Therefore, if the landlord/agent failed in this regard at the outset of the tenancy, then if the landlord serves a Section 21 notice to quit and the tenant contests it, the latter has a very strong case to argue in court that the notice is illegal and invalid.
There are various comments at the bottom of the article linked above which clarify some of the legal issues around the decision.
On October 1 2018, assuming it is not overturned at the High Court, and as written in the Deregulation Act’s amendment of 2015, the ruling will apply not only to deregulated private tenancies but also to regulated ones.
Hence housing activists need to GET MOBILISING around defending these ground-breaking judgements from any sneaky moves by the Tories and the NLA ASAP.
The council’s management of Antona Court, a block of council flats in Shire and home of local gobshite and activist Steve Norman, increasingly resembles a bad scene from Apocalypse Now.
A recent decision by the council to reduce the opening times of the block’s 24-hour basement laundry to 8am – 8pm without BOTHERING to inform anyone has caused consternation among the residents. Not least when a team of council workmen materialised without explanation and carried out a load of EXPENSIVE work replacing locks and rewiring electrics to execute this vital laundry facility time reduction plan.
When residents started asking the council simple questions like, “why have you shut our laundry?” and “who authorised these changes?” and “how much are you spending on this pointless bollocks?”, the council bizarrely replied, “WE DON”T KNOW”
Is there a ROGUE TEAM of council workmen loose in Bristol making unauthorised alterations to laundry facilities across the city? Or has Antona Court been especially singled out by a mysterious SECRET CABAL within the council intent on clamping down on access to Antona Court’s laundry facilities as part of a new command and control mechanism over its council tenants? Or are the people running our city’s housing department just plain fucking mental?
Who knows? Although we may find out soon as Steve has filed a complaint with the COUNTY COURT, pointing out that council tenants do have RIGHTS over the properties they occupy. He’s demanding that the council immediately REOPEN the laundry and consult the residents of Antona Court – as they’re required to do under the Housing Act – before altering a service that tenants pay for.
Will the council spend even more of our money defending their exciting new laundry regime in court? Or will the council’s legal team tell the jackasses in their housing department to stop pissing about WASTING PUBLIC MONEY and start behaving themselves?
Skint they say? Well it looks like Bristol City Council have got plenty of money to fight POINTLESS cases in the COUNTY COURT.
So look out for the TRIAL OF THE CENTURY coming soon to Bristol Civil Justice Centre when our idiot council will bravely fight to keep the shared laundry facility at Antona Court, Shirehampton CLOSED between 8.00pm and 8.00am for no apparent reason!
It appears that the council decided, without any consultation whatsoever, to close the 24-hour laundry, which residents pay a fee to use, last Thursday and have courageously IGNORED any complaints from tenants since.
Resident Steve Norman has therefore FILED A CASE at the County Court demanding the reinstatement of UNLIMITED use of the laundry pending proper consultation and asking for compensation for loss of amemity and breach of tenancy. The council have responded that they will “await to hear from the Bristol Civil Justice Centre.”
Whether the council’s actions at Antona Court form part of the Rev Rees’s legendarily stupid TORY CUTS programme or whether this is just his Estate Management team playing at being twats over Antona Court again is unclear. Mainly because the Reverend and his minions are TOTALLY SILENT on any of the specifics regarding their latest BIZARRE ACTION at the legendary block of flats.
So how much is all this pointless legal bullshit likely to cost us? And isn’t it funny how there’s plenty of cash and resources around to take on the PEASANTS in court over shared laundry facilities and their opening times but no cash around to fight DEVELOPERS in court who don’t meet social housing obligations?
THE SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE BEGINS! (You’ll be telling your grandchildren about this – well, Marvin Rees probably won’t. He’ll be shuffling around the room, staring at the floor desperately trying to change the subject)
Following a short hearing at Bristol’s County Court this morning, occupiers of 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth have been ordered to leave the house immediately so that the sale of the council house to a private buyer can proceed.
Occupiers of the house, who have been there since April 20, six hours before the home was auctioned off to the highest bidder, have rejected the order out of hand. “We’re not leaving,” announced occupier Steve Norman immediately after the hearing.
During the hearing the council revealed the buyer of their property had issued them with a Notice of Completion on 18 May after the council had failed to complete the sale transaction on time because they were unable to provide the buyer with ‘Unoccupied Possession” of the home.
This Notice of Completion gives the council ten working days to complete the transaction or the sale falls through and the house remains in public ownership. The stage therefore is set for a battle between between bailiffs and occupiers leading up to this deadline of2 June
Occupiers say, “we have contingency plans in place and are confident of remaining in the house for the foreseeable future.”