The right to rent scheme has recently come under attack from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrant (“JCWI”), who have threatened a pre-emptive challenge to the Government’s plan to expand the scheme into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. JWCI claim that the Government has failed to properly assess whether, as they allege, the scheme has a discriminatory impact on BME, non-British and non-European people who are trying to find rented accommodation. Separate research conducted by JWCI and the Residential Landlords Association has shown evidence that minorities are disadvantaged by the right to rent scheme when looking for accommodation.

There is little doubt among industry professionals that if a Conservative majority is returned to Parliament, the Government will seek to expand the scheme to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. A prolonged legal battle appears to be inevitable; there is little appetite for ‘Right to Rent’ among the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Immigration is a reserved matter (meaning the Westminster Parliament makes laws covering the whole UK), but right to rent also touches on housing policy, which is a devolved matter. By convention, Parliament does not make laws relating to devolved matters without the consent of the devolved legislatures.

There are political and legal challenges to the geographic expansion of right to rent, but the Government is also quietly expanding the scope of the scheme in England. Internal Home Office guidance for immigration enforcement staff now requires a Notice of Letting to a Disqualified Person (“NDLP” in Home Office jargon) to be served on landlords where officials identify that a person who has no right to rent has been granted a residential tenancy agreement.

The NDLP is a two-edged sword – the landlord must make steps to end the tenancy agreement within a reasonable timeframe or they might commit a criminal offence. However, service of the NDLP will also activate additional lawful methods of eviction for the landlord.

We expect that NDLPs will start to be seen more frequently now that Home Office staff are required by departmental policy to serve them wherever the opportunity is there. There are also plans for “bespoke data sharing exercises” between the Home Office and other government departments to identify opportunities to serve an NDLP. If so inclined, Landlords can request an NDLP if they wish to evict a person who has no right to rent and they need to rely on an eviction power created by the Immigration Act 2016. In some circumstances, requesting an NDLP may be the only way for a landlord to avoid committing a criminal offence. These activities will be administered by a specialist “Evictions Team” within the Home Office.

The enforcement guidance also shows that Home Office are prepared to serve an NDLP with respect to a tenancy which began before the right to rent scheme was rolled out across England (on 1 February 2016). This means that the right to rent scheme will now touch all tenancies in England, no matter when they began.

Anthony Gold Solicitors are recognised experts in developments in residential housing law and we can give specialist advice to landlords and letting agents about their obligations under the scheme.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

 

 

 

 

 

Sanctions to tackle tobacco duty evasion and other excise duty evasion Consultation document Publication date: 17 February 2017 Closing date for comments: 12 May 2017

It might become compulsory for commercial, and possibly residential, landlords to actively inspect their properties and police tenants suspected of tobacco and other excise duty evasion under plans proposed by HM Revenue and Customs.

HMRC is of the view that, despite improvements, tobacco fraud remains a problem in the UK with an estimation of 5 billion illicit cigarettes and 3,200 tonnes of illicit hand-rolling tobacco being consumed in the UK in 2015-16. This challenges legitimate tobacco business, public health and facilitates the supply of tobacco to young people. To address this issue, legislation was introduced in January 2017 for a raw tobacco approval scheme but tougher sanctions are now being considered to tackle the problem head-on.

How could this affect landlords?

Retail outlets are often used to sell illicit tobacco and in some cases, it is thought that some landlords are aware but decide to turn a blind eye for the sake of rental payment. Furthermore, in some cases, it is believed that the landlord is actively involved. Landlords are now going to be a part of preventing illicit tobacco trading from happening under their roofs.

What will landlords have to do?

The consultation offers two main approaches: a voluntary approach or the introduction of a new statutory duty of care.

The first approach comprises of the introduction of an additional clause which expressly makes any sale of illicit tobacco trading or any other illicit activity tantamount to a breach thus terminating the existing lease. Tenants should be evicted if such breaches occur. This will not only act as a deterrent to tenants but will also aid in the landlord’s defence to show that reasonable steps were taken, particularly if a copy of the lease (with the express clause) is sent to the HMRC as proof.

The new duty of care would be enforceable by a civil penalty for landlords who fail to take reasonable steps to ensure that their property is not used to evade duty. Imposing a duty of care on landlords will not only prevent landlords from actively being involved with illicit tobacco selling but also prohibit landlords from omitting to intervene when illicit tobacco is being sold in their properties.

Such duty of care will only arise once the landlord or landowner has been notified that the tenant has evaded tobacco duty (or other excise duty.) Landlords who have taken reasonable steps to prevent future wrongdoings on their property are offered defences which slightly reduces the burden on landlords.

Reasonable steps that could be used as a defence include undertaking periodic checks of the premises and for all landlords to request information relating to the tenants’ business or the additional provisions in the new lease making it clear that illicit tobacco trading or other excise acidity would terminate an existing lease. Consequently, if a landlord is made aware of the illicit activity, they must contact HMRC or Trading Standards immediately.

What about residential landlords?

The HMRC is not being clear about whether this will apply to residential landlords. The consultation does not make it clear whether it applies to commercial or domestic landlords. Additionally, we are aware that the HMRC has approached organisations representing residential landlords requesting their comments and so it seems they are intending that residential landlords should be caught by these changes.

On a practical basis, making private residential landlords carry out periodic checks could be very difficult to police as well as time-consuming and costly. Tenants have a right to quiet enjoyment of their home and residential landlords cannot simply expect on a whim and so their ability to detect unlawful tobacco sales is minimal.

Further, residential landlords are not, in fact, able to evict tenants for unlawful tobacco sales without solid evidence and, in all probability, a prosecution for the offence. If HMRC is stepping in to prosecute the tenant then it is likely that they will want to prosecute the landlord at the same time. This would mean that the landlord would not have had the opportunity to evict the tenant prior to the prosecution.

When will we see changes?

It is yet to be decided which approach will be taken. If a new statutory duty is introduced, the reasonableness of steps taken by the landlord and the proportionality of sanctions will need to made clear alongside which sanctions should be applied to landlords who fall short of their duties.

Some of the requirements seem very burdensome. Practically, it may be too difficult for landlords to regularly check on tenants, particularly for commercial investors who have large portfolios. This also raises questions surrounding subletting; would the landlord be expected to check the tenant and the subtenant? The introduction of the additional provision in the lease may be an easier option and perhaps and good place to start but if that is not a strong enough action then perhaps we will be seeing a new statutory duty backed by civil penalties quite soon.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

If you have been on a desert island over the last few days you may not be aware that a UK general election has been called for 8 June. Parliament will be dissolved on 3 May.

This will have implications for the private rented sector as a number of measures were in progress and these will now potentially be delayed.

Early examples of this disruption are starting to show. I am speaking at two events next week which have been hurriedly re-arranged because the civil servants who were intended to speak on the Housing and Planning Act and the Homelessness Reduction Bill are now in electoral purdah and so are not able to comment on anything that may touch on government policy.

However there are some more concrete examples:

1. The Homelessness Reduction Bill has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. However it has not yet received its Royal Assent so that it can become an Act and then be brought into force and no date has been set for that. If it is not done before 3 May then a date will not be set until after the election. In addition the various regulations and other measures which are needed to actually bring it into effect have not yet been circulated for discussion and this can now not happen until after a new Minister is in post. Realistically not before the latter part of June, at best. It had been hoped that some of this would start to come into force so that this desperately needed Bill would start to make changes in the new year. Those timelines are now doubtful.
2. While parts of the Housing and Planning Act are in force there were further elements such as the Rogue Landlord database and Banning Orders which were expected to come into force in October 2017. Again regulations were expected shortly to start the process of making this happen and the IT project that underpins the database was also in progress. Again these are now trapped without a Minister to push them forward for the next month. Again the October deadline must now be in doubt.
3. The Housing and Planning Act also included provisions about Client Money Protection and Electrical Safety. There were no further consultations expected in these areas but there were working group reports which needed approving and regulations were again to be drafted to implement the reforms. Yet again this will be at risk of delay.
4. Finally, there is an open consultation on banning letting agent fees. This was to be supported by workshops commencing at the end of April. All of these workshops have now been cancelled although the consultation itself will continue and will close before the election. However, there is now a possibility that the entire policy will be lost if a new Housing Minister has other things which capture his attention more strongly.

These are but a few examples. The entire direction of government housing policy, recently set out to a degree in its new white paper will now be in question again. No doubt, assuming the current government is returned to power many of the elements already in place will continue but it is almost inevitable that the cabinet will have some new faces and they may have alternative ideas about housing. At the very least it will create delay and cause uncertainty in the PRS well into 2018.

In situations where forfeiture of property is sought by a commercial or residential landlord, it can be difficult for all parties. Landlords may be unsure of the legal process they must follow to seek forfeiture of a property, whereas tenants may be unaware of their rights with regard to forfeiture. Our housing experts have put together this simple guide, explaining what forfeiture is, what it means in practice, and what is meant by relief from forfeiture.

What is forfeiture of property?

Forfeiture is the term used when a landlord prematurely terminates a lease on a property, due to the tenant failing to uphold the terms of their contract. A landlord may seek forfeiture of a property is the tenant is in rent arrears, or fails to keep the property up to an acceptable standard. 

For a more in-depth explanation, you may also like to watch this brief explainer video by Ian Mitchell, a partner in the Anthony Gold leasehold services team.

In short, forfeiture allows landlords to repossess a property from a tenant, by activating a clause in the tenant’s contract. For a landlord to do this, however, certain conditions must be met.

When can a landlord seek forfeiture of a property?

In order for a landlord to terminate a lease early and have their tenant forfeit the property, they must ensure:

• That a forfeiture clause has been included in the lease. This is the contractual obligation they will activate in order to proceed with the forfeiture.
• The amount owing is greater than £350, and consists of unpaid ground rent, service charges, or administration charges. Smaller amounts may be considered by the Courts, if the balance has been outstanding for a period longer than 3 years.
• The issue at hand (e.g. of unpaid rent or damage to the property) is not already going through an appeals process.

The landlord may also be able to proceed with forfeiture in some circumstances, if this is agreed with the tenant as part of a dispute resolution process. The tenant may agree to forfeit the property, even if not all of the above conditions have been met.

What happens when a property is forfeit and the lease is terminated?

There are two ways of effecting forfeiture: by peaceable re-entry through a contractual right contained in the lease; or by issuing court proceedings pursuant to CPR Part 55. 

Peaceable Re-entry

Peaceable re-entry is when a landlord, or representative of a landlord, arrives at the property, re-enters it, and secures it once the tenant has vacated the premises. This will typically involve changing the locks, and dealing with any possessions which have been left by the previous tenant. 

Peaceable re-entry can only occur when the tenant isn’t still at the property, and shouldn’t be attempted if the tenant is using the property as their home. Therefore, this method of forfeiture is often seen more commonly with commercial properties such as office building and shops.

CPR 55 procedure for possession of residential property

CPR 55 is part of the Civil Procedure Rules, specifying the legal steps that must be taken by landlords in order to repossess their property, and ensure that the property is forfeited by the current tenant. This involves the landlord making a possession claim against the existing tenant, typically seeking either a section 8 or section 21 eviction.

For more information on forfeiting a commercial lease for rent arrears, you may like to read this related article, Forfeiting a commercial lease when there has been a breach.

What is relief from forfeiture?

Although forfeiture may seem like a very final process, there are options for recourse that tenants can take to overturn the forfeiture and prevent the termination of their lease and repossession of the property.

A tenant can apply for relief from forfeiture as soon as the landlord begins forfeiture proceedings. The process of applying for relief can differ, depending on the kind of contractual breach that the landlord is claiming has been made. The tenant may make an application for relief from forfeiture to either the county Court or High Court, depending on where their landlord has brought proceedings against them. 

If the application for relief is successful, the lease can be reinstated as though the forfeiture process never occurred. The tenant may be given a court order outlining a plan to repay the landlord, with an extension of time to pay their outstanding debts.

When can relief from forfeiture be granted?

As a general rule, the court will grant relief from forfeiture provided that an application is made within 6 months of the Landlord effecting forfeiture. The statutory provisions under the County Court Act 1984 and Common Law Procedure Act 1852 place a time limit on the Court’s power to grant relief beyond 6 months. 

In the High Court, where forfeiture has been effected by peaceable re-entry, relief comes from the Court’s equitable jurisdiction.  Although there is no prescribed time limit, the court will use the 6-month limit as guidance. The Court will exercise its inherent equitable jurisdiction when deciding whether to grant relief in such circumstances.

Relief from Forfeiture: Case Studies

There have been a number of cases where disputes between landlords and tenants have led either to forfeiture of the property, or the tenant successfully applying for relief from forfeiture from the County or High Court. We will discuss four such cases below, and explain how forfeiture law applies.

Pineport v Grangeglen [2016] EWCA 1316 (Ch)

Pineport vs Grangeglen is an example of when the Court used its equitable jurisdiction to grant relief some 14 months from when the landlord proceeded with forfeiture. The decision arose from very specific facts and although it provides a good example of the Court’s discretion to grant relief, it should be adopted with caution.

At the time of forfeiture, the tenant’s rent arrears amounted to £2,155.00. The Landlord effected forfeiture by peaceable re-entry. The tenant applied for relief from forfeiture 14 months later. The Landlord argued that due to the 14-month delay, the tenant should be barred from seeking relief.

Granting the tenant relief, the Court confirmed that an application must be made with “reasonable promptitude” but that it is an “elastic concept”. When considering whether an application had been made with “reasonable promptitude” the Court took the following factors into consideration:

1. The reason for the tenant’s delay in making an application was due to financial constraints after being subject to a restraining order following a criminal prosecution for MOT fraud; the tenant had not obtained specialist legal advice; and that the director was suffering from severe depression.
2. The landlord had taken no steps between forfeiture and trial to re-market the property.
3. The value of the arrears represented less than 1% of the value of the underlease of £275,000 which would provide the landlord with a disproportionate windfall.
4. The landlord was unable to show that he had suffered any prejudice as a result of the unpaid rent, forfeiture or the delay in the tenant’s application for relief.
5. This decision demonstrates that the court will take various factors into consideration when deciding whether to grant relief beyond the usual 6-month guidance.

To learn more about the particulars of this case, you may like to read our related article, Pineport: Relief from Forfeiture Granted Following Tenant’s 14-month Delay.

Freifeld v West Kensington [2015] EWCA Civ 806

In Freifeld vs West Kensington, the court considered whether it should grant relief from forfeiture when the landlord stood to gain a substantial windfall.

The tenant, Mr Freifeld, was granted leases of seven commercial retail units forming part of a residential block in West Kensington Court. The leases were granted for a term of 99 years from 1982. The rent achievable in respect of the subletting was significant. Without the landlord’s consent, the tenant sub-let one of the units to a Chinese restaurant in breach of covenant. The landlord received several complaints from the residential occupants above. Consequently, the Landlord forfeited the headlease for breach of covenant. Due to the high value of the leases and the considerable period left to run, the landlord stood to gain a significant windfall of between £1-2 million on forfeiture.

The tenant made an application for relief, which was refused by the County Court on the basis of the tenant’s conduct and “their cynical disregard for their obligations under the lease”.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal granted relief, on the condition that it assigned the lease within 6 months.

The court held that “the windfall point is about proportionality. The [tenant’s] egregious conduct is not relevant to the question of windfall…” The Court of Appeal held that the County Court was wrong not to consider the windfall that the landlord was set to gain. It should have considered this on its own merits and then weighed this against all other circumstances when concluding whether forfeiture was a proportionate remedy.

The decision makes it clear that the court will consider the proportionality of granting relief even where the tenant is in deliberate breach of his lease.

Ashley Gardens Freeholds Limited v Linda Marinelli Landor. County Court at Central London. April 2017

This case has been reported in various newspapers, including the Daily Mail and the London Evening Standard. I have not had the benefit of reading the judgment, and so the exact details of the case are unknown. However, the case deals with a particularly hot topic at the moment; the letting of a leasehold property on short term lets in breach of covenant. We have another article discussing the risks of short-term letting, called Short Term Letting in London – An Update, for those who may find it helpful.

Ms Landor is leasehold owner of a property in Westminster. Ms Landor was accused by the freeholder, Ashley Gardens Limited, of engaging in persistent short term letting through Airbnb and other similar platforms. The freeholder elected to forfeit the lease for breach of covenant, presumably the lease prohibited the use other than by a single family or for use of a business.

Again, I presume that Mrs Landor made an application for relief from forfeiture, which was refused by the court. Making an order for forfeiture, HHJ Lochrane commented that “Mrs Landor ha[d] demonstrated over very many years that she either does not understand the rules or feels that they do not apply to her”.

Despite ordering forfeiture, the court delayed the order for 6 months to allow Mrs Landor an opportunity to sell the property. It is likely that the court considered the substantial windfall which the freeholder was set to gain on forfeiture and decided that it would be disproportionate to make an outright order for forfeiture. Instead, they allowed the leaseholder an opportunity to sell the property.

General Motors v Manchester Ship Canal [2016] EWHC 2960 (Ch)

Finally, In General Motors v Manchester Ship Canal, the High Court again considered the question of windfall in granting relief from forfeiture to a mere licensee.

Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited (MSC) granted General Motors UK Limited (GM) a perpetual licence to discharge surface water from its main manufacturing site into the Manchester Ship Canal. The licence was granted on the condition that GM pay an annual £50 fee. GM fell into arrears from 2013 (presumably due to an administration error) and MSC terminated the licence.

GM subsequently attempted to negotiate a new licence and MSC advised that it would grant the licence for an increase fee of £450,000 per annum (approximately a 900,000% increase!).

Granting GM relief from forfeiture, HHJ Behrens commented that the new licence fee which MSC was seeking from the new licence terms was an “obvious” windfall and that the court cannot, as a term of relief, rewrite the licence. The Court did not see any commercial policy reasons for not granting relief.

This recent spate of case law demonstrates that the court will exercise its discretion in granting relief from forfeiture where the court believes that it is equitable to do so.

If you’d like to read more about General Motors v Manchester Ship Canal [2016] EWHC 2960 (Ch), we have written an in-depth case study, which examines the particulars of this case, as well as the legal outcome. 

If you’re concerned about a property to which you hold the leasehold, or are a tenant whose landlord has started forfeiture proceedings, you can get in contact with a member of our team to discuss your situation. Our Housing and Property Disputes team are experts in forfeiture law, and will work with you and offer guided support to help you to reach the best outcome for your case. 

You can contact us via our website, and a member of the team will be in touch shortly to discuss your case. Or, you can browse our full range of services to see which is best suited for you. 

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

On 7 April, the day after the penalty charges and rent repayment order changes in the Housing and Planning Act were introduced, the government published its long awaited consultation into its proposed ban on letting agency fees. This consultation is open for responses until 2 June 2017. The ban will need primary legislation and so the actual implementation date is not clear but is unlikely to be before late 2018.

The consultation sets out what the government sees as the key duties of letting agents in the letting process. Interestingly this mentions the function of agents in responding to tenant queries but glosses over the role that many good agents have in educating landlords and tenants as to their rights and responsibilities.

The government makes the point that there is wide variability in agency fees but also suggests that tenants, unlike landlords, cannot shop around. The government is guilty here of assuming that the entire agency market is the same. In some areas landlords have difficulty shopping around as well as there are relatively few agents in the area. In busier areas where properties are frequently listed with more than one agent (such as London) there is evidence that tenants do shop around and compare agent fees.

The mechanism of the ban being proposed is confused. The government clearly recognises the risj that agents will simply charge the fees to landlords and the landlord will re-charge them to the tenant as it is proposing to ban all fees to tenants regardless of who charges them. However, wording this is going to be very difficult indeed, especially as the government is intending to allow charges to be made for things in the tenancy agreement which are incurred by tenant request or action. This may end up being a very grey area with a lot more items being presented as options for the tenant to select and incur a fee for.

There will be concern from landlords that limiting agency fees will mean that fees to landlords will rise. With landlords already being pressed by tax changes they may well look to increase rent to cover these new costs although there will be a cap on what the market will bear in some areas.

Surprisingly, the government has also thrown in a new idea which is to limit the size of tenancy deposits. This has come out of left-field somewhat and is not something that has been suggested before. In Scotland a deposit cannot exceed three times the monthly rent but there is no similar restriction in England. Unless the sum is calculated by reference to the rent then there is a risk that deposits will not keep pace with inflation. There is also the associated limit that this places on the ability of the market to allow tenants with doubtful credit histories to rent property and this will mean that agents will ask for rent in advance or guarantors instead.

One of the big problems with this change will be the ongoing issue of enforcement. The fee transparency regime under the Consumer Rights Act is largely unenforced with only a small handful of local authorities talking any formal action. The government highlighted a Generation Rent survey that showed 12% of agents still not displaying fees. Personally, I suspect that it is worse than this in some areas and I certainly regularly encounter agencies which have no fees displayed. Given that the existing provisions have not yet been given a chance to work and are poorly enforced a further change seems premature and likely to fail unless the enforcement is far more robust.

It is clear that the government is determined to see a ban in place. The exact mechanism and scope of that ban is something that will be hotly debated.

I am hosting an event on the 16th May, please click here for more information.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

People often incorrectly refer to a hearing for possession as an eviction hearing. Generally, a landlord cannot gain possession of a property without first obtaining a court order for possession. There is normally no separate eviction hearing.

Should I plan to attend the hearing?

Yes, you should make every effort to attend, as the Judge will not be impressed if you simply do not turn up and may make an order for possession in your absence.

If for some reason you cannot attend the hearing, you need to tell the court. The name of the court will be stated on the letter telling you about the hearing. You should contact the court by phone or email to tell them why you cannot attend. If you intend to defend the claim and haven’t yet filed your defence, you can still send it to the court. You should contact the court to ensure that it has been received and placed on your file for the Judge.

Preparing for the hearing

It may still be possible to get legal advice and representation for the hearing. If you think that you have a defence (such as your landlord not protecting your deposit) or a counter claim (such as disrepair), we may be able to assist.

If you are unable to obtain legal advice and representation, you can still negotiate with your landlord and see if they will withdraw the court proceedings. Call them and explain why you should remain in your home. For instance, if there is an issue with rent arrears, you may be able to negotiate a repayment plan and ask that they withdraw the claim. If they agree to do this, ask them to put this in writing and you should keep a copy.

If you haven’t already, you should try and sort out your documents to take to court. You may not fully understand them, but a good starting point is to put them in date order in a folder or envelope.

You should have received a formal notice seeking possession prior to the claim being sent to court. Make sure you bring this, any other correspondence relating to the claim and the court documents to the hearing.

If you believe that you have a defence or counter-claim, you should collate any evidence that relates to it, such as up-to-date photos of disrepair or correspondence relating to benefit issues that have caused rent arrears. Make sure that you bring these documents to court.

If you have rent arrears, you should ensure that you bring your completed income and expenditure form to the hearing. You should have already completed this in your defence that you filed at court.

You may find it useful to prepare a short summary of your case to help you explain what has happened to the judge. Do try and keep this brief.

Attending court

Understandably, a lot of people feel very nervous about attending court, especially if they have not been before. However, it is not as dramatised as it is on television and you are not on trial. It’s important to remember that the courts are impartial. The Judge wants to be presented with the facts and the law to then be able to make a decision.

You do not need to wear a suit, but do dress for court.

Get to court early. You may be able to see the duty solicitor at the court on the day and obtain legal advice.  Get to court at least 30 minutes before the scheduled hearing.  The duty solicitor will have a limited time to see you and it will help them if you have prepared your documents.

Most courts have security at the entrance and everyone needs to go through the body scanner and have their bags checked. Allow extra time for this.

At the court, you should check which court room your case is being heard in. This information is usually on the boards. Ask the court staff if you are unsure.

You may also be able to negotiate with your landlord while you are waiting to be called. For instance, you may be able to arrange a repayment plan to clear rent arrears and request that the hearing be withdrawn.

At the hearing

The Judge will need to decide whether to grant your landlord possession.

The hearings are often quite short with some being allocated a mere 5 minutes. If you have already prepared a short summary of your case, bring a spare copy to hand to the Judge at the start of the hearing to read.

If you do not agree with the claim, do not admit it. You should ask the Judge to consider any defence that you have and show them evidence. In addition, tell the Judge if you have tried, but been unable to get legal advice. In such a situation, you could also ask the Judge to adjourn (i.e. postpone) the hearing to give you more time to obtain advice and/or deal with any other issues.

The court may make a suspended or postponed possession order, setting out terms that you need to comply with. If you do not, your landlord can ask the court to make an outright possession order.

Alternatively, the Judge may grant your landlord possession and set a date for you to leave the property. If you do not leave by this date, your landlord can ask the court to evict you.

If a possession order is made against you, it may be possible to appeal and it is still worth obtaining advice. You could try shelter or Civil Legal Advice.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*