By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Back this Section 21 legal case, rental industry urged

Agents and landlords are being urged to back a legal case to protect their rights to repossess properties.

This follows a recent court case in which a landlord’s attempt to regain their property was deemed invalid due to a dispute over a gas safety certificate.

After that landlord was initially granted an order to repossess the property using Section 21 powers, the tenant successfully appealed on the grounds that they were not provided with a gas safety certificate prior to moving in.


Despite the landlord making this available once the tenancy had begun, the court ruled that the landlord’s Section 21 powers were invalid, referring to a previous similar case in which the certificate was made available less than two weeks after the tenant moved in.

The judge in the appeal said that if the gas safety certificate was not served on the tenant before they took up occupation then a Section 21 notice could not be relied on to regain possession, and the situation could not be resolved by serving one after the moving in date.

Now the Residential Landlords Association has come out in favour of the landlord - Trecarrell House Limited - on the basis that so long as the gas safety certificate is provided before the Section 21 notice is served, then it should be regarded as valid. 

The association argues that the case could breach a landlord’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights on the basis that it deprives them of their possession.

It is calling on the industry to back the case by making a financial contribution to support the case through a Crowd Justice website, which you can see here.

“Protecting the rights of landlords to repossess properties in legitimate circumstances is key to providing the confidence the sector needs to offer longer tenancies” says David Smith, the RLA’s policy director. 

“The landlord in this case was not seeking to shirk their responsibilities and provided the certificates that were needed. We will fight to ensure that if nothing else, logic prevails. We urge those who agree to support the campaign by making a contribution to the costs.”

  • S l
    • S l
    • 22 August 2019 09:44 AM

    I thought the courts were supposed to interpret the law logically and to prevent fraud as in this case by the tenants. The Barrister should argue that the gas certificate are required by the hmo licence to be displayed clearly in the house at all time which should cover the claim that gas cert were not served on tenants prior or on the day they moved in. Perhaps the Barrister is not familiar with hmo letting or the regulation covering that and the judge certainly wont have that knowledge and going according to the media waves. That is absolutely absurd to say the least. THE LAW IS AN ASS


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up