Essay Plans Flashcards
(36 cards)
Ground f in s.30 LTA 1954 - Frances v Cavendish Hotels: landlord’s ‘intention’
What is the predominant Question regarding this case and ground?
Landlord’s intention: it being irrelevant to relying on the ground, yet essential to determine whether a landlord’s intention is GENUINE to carry out works
What are the facts in Frances v Cavendish Hotels?
tenant - Frances (textile dealership) occupied the ground floor and basement of the building
landlord - Cavendish Hotels occupied the remainder of the building
The tenant served notice to renew its lease in March 2015. The landlord served a counter-notice opposing the grant of a new lease pursuant to Ground (f). The landlord stated that the works had no practical utility and said that the works would not be undertaken if the tenant left voluntarily.
What was the issue in Frances v Cavendish Hotels?
A key requirement on relying on ground f is intention: the landlord must have a genuine intention, so the issue was whether:
1. Cavendish Hotels had a genuine intention?
2. Whether their motive mattered?
What was the decision in Frances v Cavendish Hotels?
Held - a landlord’s motive was irrelevant to rely on ground f, but in some circumstances, it could be useful evidence of the landlord’s underlying intention & Cavendish Hotel HAD satisfied the intention requirement to rely on ground f.
What concept and test did Frances v Cavendish Hotels establish?
(Lord Sumption’s judgement)
Independence of Intention– The landlord must have agenuine, pre-existing intentionto carry out the works, regardless of whether the tenant is seeking a renewal. Their intention must be fixed and settled.
The ‘Acid Test’ - The court asks: Would the landlord still intend to do the works if the tenant left voluntarily?
NO - (i.e., the landlord only wants to do the works to remove the tenant), then the landlord does not have the genuine and settled intention required under Ground (f).
From Frances, how is the landlord’s motive relevant / useful?
Relevant - helps to establish whether these works are genuine or a mere ‘tactic’ to evict the tenant
If motive is a tatic - works would be pointless and impractical, suggesting no real commitment to carry out works – makes intention conditional on removing the tenant.
If motive is genuine, then it would be realistic - eg. planning permission has been obtained, or the financing of works is established
Motives can determine the credibility of the landlord’s intention
Case law: “moved out of the zone of contemplation” and into “the valley of decision” - Cunliffe v Goodman [1950]
From Frances, how is the landlord’s motive irrelevant?
Prevents the courts being subjective in their inquiry as to whether the landlord’s intention is commercially sensible, vindictive, strategic etc.
Acid Test: If the answer is NO – intention is conditional. Without knowing the actual intention in answering the question, the courts can determine whether it is genuine (CORE in relying on ground f)
Critic of Frances - is motive relevant or not?
Useful – purpose of landlord’s relying on grounds is to ensure security of tenure; landlords can’t (and couldn’t) evict tenants on trivial matters.
Purpose of Act: security of tenure from landlords – if motive is irrelevant, it can undermine the spirit of the Act
Used as a loophole – (although an expensive way to regain possession) = still vulnerable to abuse
Scrutinising motive in a way where motive is relevant is a necessary and justifies a safeguarding mechanism against landlords using artificial or unnecessary works as a pretext to evict tenants = ensures that s.30(f) operates fairly, striking a balance between landlords’ property rights and the protective purpose of the 1954 Act.
What are s.21 notices? What is the context in which they were established?
HA 1988 – introduced s.21 notices in terminating ASTs
‘No fault evictions’ – landlords can terminate an AST without relying on grounds
CONTEXT – introduced during 80s Thatcher’s government where there was a low supply of homes in the private sector (due to Rents Act 1977 – provided ‘too much’ security – disincentivised landlord’s putting their properties on the market – HA 1988 (and s.21 notices) aimed to allow a quicker recovery of properties = greater incentive = increased house supply
Why should s.21 be abolished or needs reform?
s.21 notices – used in an abusive manner
Landlord’s use it to remove tenants to charge higher rents to the highest bidder (seen in London and other urban areas) – highlights how rental properties are an INVESTMENT VEHICLE; financial assets rather a human right – worsens the unaffordability housing crisis – disproportionately impacts disadvantages tenants = BROKEN SYSTEM
What is the basic aim of the Renters Right’s Bill?
AIM: INCREASE SECURITY OF TENURE by anloshing s.21 notices and converitn ASTs to periodic tenancies
Landlords MUST rely on grounds to terminate & seek possession
Why should s.21 notices be kept?
ALREADY protective mechanisms
1. Landlords must have provided Energy & Gas Performance Certificates & How to Rent booklet to serve s.21 notice
2. Tenancy deposit scheme – Landlord must safeguard tenant’s deposit
3. HMO – cannot serve s.21 notices
4. Retaliatory eviction – cannot serve / invalid if tenant has made a written complaint
From the Rents Act - harder for landlords to regain possession, s.21 notices allow it in a much easier straightforward process
What would be some potential implications of a s.21 notice reform (from the Renters Right’s Bill)?
Hint: 6 implications
Landlords: slower to recover possession – less incentive to put homes on the market (critic – will they if most landlords use rental income to pay their mortgages and mortgage repayments are more expensive)
Tenants: greater security / protection – important given the higher cost of living means more people are renters
BUT: if landlords leave the market or increase rents, affordability may worsen, creating a “security vs supply” dilemma.
Courts: possibly overwhelm with applications for court orders for possession (Solution: tribunal-style reform)
Wider implications in society / the market etc.
STILL DOESN’T FIX THE UNAFFORDABILITY HOUSING CRISIS – landlords can offset inflexibility with increased rents upfront / tighter renting requirements – potential to be more discriminative
Does the abolishment of s.21 notices (and the reform) have the ability to sit within the current aspects of the law?
Wales & Scotland reforms – highlight abolishment is not enough; it is supplemented with other reforms like rent protection mechanism (Scotland) and a reform of ASTs (Wales)
For Renters Right’s Bill (specific essay Qs) - what lessons can we learn from Scotland and Wales?
Scotland - Abolished s.21s, introduced a new list of eviction grounds & introduced rent control zones
= greater tenant protection without major landlord exodus, but rising rents continue (b/c of demand-supply imbalance)
Wales - Created new tenancies – occupation contracts – and extended notice periods. Longer notice period w no fault evictions (6 months) → compromise approach
Neither Scotland nor Wales has “solved” housing insecurity or unaffordability—both show that abolition of s.21 alone is not a silver bullet
For Renters Right’s Bill (specific essay Qs) - what is a possible market response if implemented?
Residential market is a PRIVATE market – actors who provide the private good (rental homes) are incentivised by profits – FINANCIAL MARKET (not a social utility one)
Already seeing increasing involvement of financial institutions – large asset managers, private equity firms etc. – new rental products (BTRs) with the sole intent to capitalise on the growth of rental housing option
IS HOUSING A RIGHT OR AN ASSET?
Possibly see rental properties for LT being converted in ST rentals (Airbnb) or being bought up by corporate landlords – Bill doesn’t account for these landlords
AST essays:
What is an AST?
Introduced in HA 1988. could be created either:
- on or after 15 Jan 1989 (it must be fixed term (no less than 6 months) and landlord must have served a notice before the tenant entered into the agreement, acknowledging it is an AST)
- or after 28 Feb 1997 - all tenancies automatically became ASTs
Can be fixed or periodic & cannot be shorter than 6 months (in theory could be < 6 months, but no order of possession could be acquired earlier than 6 months from the original tenancy date)
How are ASTs terminated?
serving a s.21 notice: ‘No fault evictions’ – landlords don’t have to rely on grounds to terminate tenancy
serving a s.8 notice: landlord relys on the grounds
or terms of the lease
How will the Renters Rights Bill reform ASTs?
- Abolishes s.21 notices
[see s.21 notices and Renter’s Rights Bill for discussion points] - Converts ASTs to periodic tenancies
Periodic tenancies – no break clause (as tenancies roll from month to month)
To terminate tenancies:
Serve s.8 notices (relying on grounds)
What are some of the implications of reforming ASTs with the Renters Right’s Bill?
Landlords & Tenants – greater flexibility
[+ abolishment of s.21 implications]
Critic the reforming of ASTs with the Renters Right’s Bill
Critic – tenants are renting for longer periods (b/c cost of living is so high and the cost of buying a home, especially in prime locations) – why would they want flexibility? [tenants seek permanence not transience]
Tenants (Fixed Term Tenants) – they entered with the PURPOSE / INTENTION to have a fixed term tenancy – Bill automatically converts it into periodic tenancy = not the aim as to why they entered legal relations with the landlord
Part of tenancy should ALLOW parties to negotiate their own terms – which includes whether it should be fixed or periodic
Public Sector Tenancies: What makes a tenancy secure in the public sector?
s.79(1) requirements: dwelling (single and separate), tenancy, at any time, landlord and tenant condition
What mechanisms take away security of tenure in the public sector?
At any time condition – tenancies can be taken out of the security realm by landlord’s discretion
Introduction and Demoted tenancies are applicable here – these take tenants out of the scope of protection for a ‘probation period’. Tenants can be evicted easier
These tools arguably reflect a shift toward a more punitive, managerial role for local authorities — prioritising risk control and tenant discipline over housing security
The idea of tenure as a “right” is diluted by making security conditional on behaviour.
Flexible Tenancies -
Tenants – takes away their security – uncertainty to plan LT in the home / community they are in as its possible for them to be removed
Can’t provide LONG TERM SECURITY for tenants – can only provide an emergency provision
= security of tenure EXISTS only for those in AN EMERGENCY (continual emergency / vulnerable state)
What mechanisms give security of tenure in the public sector?
Right to Buy Scheme – HA 1985
Allows tenants to buy their council homes at a discount – permanent security; they can remain in the property for as long as they want because they OWN it
(changes tenants’ status – tenant to homeowner = LT stability)
Overall, does security of tenure exist in the public sector?
(conclusion)
OVERALL, there is ACTUAL security of tenure in the public sector. For those introductory and flexible tenancies, they have conditional and retractable rights – questioning whether substantive security of tenure exists
highlight a policy shift toward housing as a resource to be rationed, not a stable right – ambulatory aspect of public sector tenancies
Can’t provide LONG TERM SECURITY for tenants – can only provide an emergency provision
= security of tenure EXISTS only for those in AN EMERGENCY (continual emergency / vulnerable state)
