Tag: news

Law, real estate, Uncategorized

Renters’ Rights Act 2025 – What it means for local authorities.

bruceandholly
Photo by Berdan Tudor on Pexels.com

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 goes beyond the abolition of assured shortholds and section 21 no-fault evictions. It also introduces a raft of measures intended to re-balance the legal relationship between residential landlords and their tenants at a time of housing crisis. 

Standing behind these reforms are the districts and unitaries which will have the difficult job of policing the new legislation. 

Indeed, the reason why new investigatory powers were brought into effect on 27th December 2025 was to give those councils a four-month head start to get their enforcement policies in place before the grand launch of the new legislation on 1st May 2026. Other key structural changes introduced by the 2025 Act, include:

  • The abolition of fixed term residential tenancies, which means that tenants can vacate on giving as little as 2 months prior written notice to the landlord;
  • Increased regulation of tenancy documentation;
  • An obligation on landlords and letting agents to quote a fixed rent when marketing a proposed residential letting and not being allowed to accept anything more than the quoted rent;
  • Increased restrictions on the amount of money which landlord can ask by way of advance rent;
  • A 12 months moratorium on re-letting, in circumstances where a landlord relies on one of the new non-fault grounds to recover possession in circumstances where they intend to sell the property or occupy for their own purposes.
  • A prohibition on discriminating against prospective tenants who either have children or are on benefits. Whilst this does not prevent a landlord from carrying out a financial assessment on a prospective tenant, state benefits must not be treated less favourably than other private income.
  • It is also made illegal for a landlord to ‘bluff’ a tenant into vacating by pretending to rely on a ground for possession which they cannot substantiate

Just to complicate things further, the 1st May 2026 launch will not apply to all residential lettings. Only those in the private rented sector. Social lettings will for the time being continue to be governed by the existing regime until the reforms are extended to social landlords later in 2026. It means that for the time being there will be two separate tenancy regimes running side by side.

The cost of getting it wrong

For private landlords and letting agents who get it wrong, there will be no second chances. There will be no warning letters. Only financial penalties. Nor is the new enforcement regime intended to be complaints-led.

Government guidance asks local authorities to be proactive in the enforcement of the new tenancy legislation and make full use of the investigatory powers and financial penalties which are made available to them. Local authorities will be incentivised to do this by being able to keep and recycle financial penalties into more enforcement.

Within the legislation there are at least three separate financial penalty regimes and a maximum range of penalties from £4,000 up to £40,000 depending on the nature and seriousness of the breach. The government also encourages councils to use financial penalties in preference to prosecution where it is possible to do so. Some circumstances giving rise to financial penalties require proof on a balance of probabilities whilst the most serious require proof beyond reasonable doubt. In each case, the process is the same.

The council will investigate and issue notice to the landlord or letting agent proposing a penalty of a certain amount and giving an opportunity for representations to be made. On the expiration of the period for representations, the council will serve notice of its decision. The landlord will then have a right of appeal to a first-tier tribunal until the order becomes final.

New investigatory powers already in force enable councils to ask questions, enter business premises and seize documents.

Will the new legislation work?

The Renters Rights Act 2025 does not exist in isolation. Its success is dependent on a courts and tribunal system which actually works. The abolition of the accelerated possession procedure now means that all possession claims will have to go to a court hearing, where the landlord will need to prove its case. Taking account of the time needed to get to a possession hearing followed by a bailiff eviction, that eviction process could take up to a year. Add to that the longer lead-in times introduced by the 2025 Act for all grounds of possession, save those based on antisocial behaviour.

It also means more work for first tier tribunals, who will be tasked with adjudicating appeals against fixed penalties. And of course it means more work for local housing authorities tasked with enforcing the new regime. This workload could increase in 2027 when the government introduces its expected landlord registration scheme, which councils will also be required to police. By 2035, the government is also expected to have introduced its Decent Homes Standard for all residential lettings.

How will it affect the Lettings Market?

The speed at which the legislation is being introduced and the fact that it applies retrospectively, means that many private landlords may not even have a chance to get out of the market. Any landlord who has not served their section 21 notice before 1st May 2026 and issued possession proceedings by the cut off date of 31st July 2026, will be caught by the new regime. We could also see a growing professionalisation of the residential lettings market, as small residential landlords drop out and are replaced by larger professional landlords who are better able to navigate the new legislation. It could also provide opportunities for social landlords to replenish their housing stock as more ex-rental properties come onto the market.

We could also see the re-emergence of avoidance schemes, such as company lets. Or private landlords choosing to lease their properties through intermediaries, such as local authorities or housing associations, who can then shoulder those landlord responsibilities and guarantee a return of vacant possession at the end of the lease. End

First Published in Local Government Lawyer – March 2026

…………………………………………………..

V. Charles Ward Is a senior property lawyer with HB Public Law and the author of Housing Regeneration: a plan for implementation. He is also the author of The Renters’ Rights Act: a practical guide, which is being published through Taylor and Francis and will be released later this year

Uncategorized

The Dangers of Eroding Jury Trials in Justice System

bruceandholly

It always disappoints me how easily intelligent people can be convinced to surrender ancient liberties to the State.

We saw it several years back in the ‘Simon Says’ world of the Covid lockdowns, when everyone had to jump to every Matt Hancock command.

“Put a mask on your face. Now clap your hands. And stand 6 ft apart. Do it when the Simon says and you will never be out.”

We’re seeing it again with David Lammy’s published proposals for the scrapping of jury trials save for the most serious charges of murder, manslaughter, rape and other public interest cases. But what is more worrying for me, from listening to phone-in programs, is the way people are beginning to buy into it. Not just retired police officers and prosecution barristers, who would be expected to support any proposal which would make their job easier because a prosecution would no longer have to explain it’s case and convince a panel of ordinary people. It also seems to rest on the premise that anyone who steals a mobile phone from a supermarket is already guilty and just playing the system by electing jury trial. The proposals also belittle the damage which any conviction involving dishonesty or violence can have on someone who’s trying to hold down a responsible job or career. It’s something which will stay with you for life.

When mention is made of the fact that more than 90% of criminal cases already start and end in the magistrate court, it must also be remembered that almost all of those cases involve guilty pleas, in which the magistrates’ only role is to assess the seriousness of the offence and an mitigating factors before determining sentence. Remember also that, unlike jurors, magistrates are not picked at random from amongst our communities but are people who put themselves forward for selection. They are not like you and I. It attracts a certain type of person.

One thing which I’ve always regretted is the whittling away of public involvement in our justice system, first in civil cases leading to the last defamation jury trials and now extending to judge only criminal trials. I don’t trust them. Nor should you.

Law, Uncategorized

2025/2026 Solicitors Practising Certificate Renewal

bruceandholly

I’ve just managed to renew my solicitor’s practising certificate for 2025/2926. For a non-techno like me, it was so much more difficult just to log on to the SRA website to make the application. In previous years I would just put in my log in details and password and then receive a one-time password, which I would then type in. Bingo! I’d only need another 10 minutes to complete the online application, make the payment, and my practising certificate would be on its way. Not this year.

Faced with the dreaded QR code, I spent many hours trying to suss out my cell phone to generate the six digits which would get me into the website. Up to then, my phone’s primary use had been – well – phoning! And perhaps the occasional text message. Whatsapp? Forget it! I watched the ‘ how to log on’ video on the SRA website. Then struggled again.

It’s pure luck that at the end of my road there is a small computer shop where I was able to get help to navigate through the technical barriers and complete my application. Well worth the £20 I paid the guy for his trouble. But it means that I won’t have to worry about that for another year.

Law, politics, society, Uncategorized

Concerns Over Jury Trials in Leveson’s Proposals

bruceandholly

I’m nervous about Leveson’s proposals to abolish jury trial in intermediate cases and replace them with trial by a judge and two magistrates. It is as though he’s suggesting that either way offences carrying a likely penalty of less than 3 years imprisonment are not serious. But a theft conviction can be very serious if you lose your career as a result. Fair enough if you are actually guilty of the offence charged. That’s where the jury comes in. People like you and me with the same collective sense of fairness and justice. Not quite the same when you are facing an impatient prosecution-minded magistrate or judge who just wants to get through their case list. And what is the point of even electing trial, if you are not going to get to argue your case before 12 people who are living similar lives as you are.

Another thing I have long noticed is the increasing remoteness for our justice system from common expectations of right and wrong. Where everything seems to be decided on on academic technicality. We’ve come a long way since the passing of ‘people’s judge’, Tom Denning. Then there is the secrecy over the judicial appointments process itself. Whether it’s the appointment of judges and magistrates or the members of a parole board, who ignore public outrage when releasing a dangerous murderer. Who appoints these people? I’m sure that I have never been consulted. All that is left between them and us is 12 members of a jury. Now they want to take that away, Why? Because of successive government incompetence when it comes to our criminal justice system. How does it save money by delaying a case for two or three years instead of bringing it on now? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

My own solution would be to move to an American system of elected judges and magistrates. Make them accountable.

Law

AI in Legal Research: Risks of Fake Case Citations

bruceandholly
Photo by Luca Nardone on Pexels.com

The Law Society Gazette recently reported on a case where a pupil barrister had mistakenly cited fake cases as part of her legal submissions in a case involving a local authority’s duties towards a homeless man. She had found the cases through her internet research and did not realise that the cases which she had cited did not actually exist. They had been entirely made up by an artificial intelligence program even though they appeared to her to be genuine. The result was a wasted costs order not only against her but also against the Law Centre which had instructed her. Add to that the reputational damage against both as well as the possibility of professional sanction. That’s not to say that artificial intelligence should never be used as a research tool. Only that it is a professional responsibility to carry out the follow-up due diligence to ensure that what is cited is absolutely correct.

It’s important to recognise what exactly AI is. As far as I can see, AI, in this situation, is nothing more than an advanced search engine which not only identifies data but then goes on to mash it up and serve up something else out of its components. It’s like me going down to my local breakers yard and collecting bits and pieces to build my own car. I’m sure that if I asked AI to write my next Eurovision hit in the style of Elton John, it would present to me a rehash of Lulu’s ‘Boom Bang Bang’. Which brings me onto another controversial issue. Because if I then go on to use that content as part of my Eurovision entry, I will then be breaching copyright. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t use AI in my work, including the writing of this article.

As I was aware that this was not the first instance of fake cases being cited by AI, I asked my Gemini search engine to find me some other instances where lawyers have been caught out using fake cases generated by AI. It came up with the following cases: New York Aviation Injury Claim (Mata v Avianca 2023); Morgan v Morgan (Wyoming); UK Tax Tribunal Case (Harber v Commissioner for HM Revenue and Customs) which involved a self-represented tax payer.

Have I checked any of those cases out before including reference to them in this article? No I haven’t. But neither am I intending to cite them in any court proceedings anytime soon. So I’m afraid that you will just have to trust me.

One of the reasons given by the pupil barrister for her use of AI generated cases was that she did not have direct access to Lexus Nexus or the White Book, which contains the civil practice rules. In those circumstances my own ‘go to’ would be the British and Irish Legal Information Institute, which provides a free on-line legal resource for current case law. It also makes it incumbent for anyone acting for an opponent to also check out case law provided to them by another party, just to make sure that it actually exists.