Tag: politics

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.

Uncategorized

Stamp Duty Land Tax – When it all goes wrong

bruceandholly
Photo by Dominika Greguu0161ovu00e1 on Pexels.com

Since it replaced the centuries old Stamp Duty in 2003, Stamp Duty Land Tax has become one of the UK’s most complex taxes.

Within 14 days of completion of any significant property transaction, it is the responsibility of the buyer or leaseholder to file a stamp stamp duty land tax return and pay any applicable duty on the transaction. This is usually uploaded electronically by the conveyancer who completed the purchase, save that legal responsibility for ensuring that everything contained within the return is correct and that the correct duty is paid, is placed firmly on the client-purchaser, not the conveyancer who acted on the purchase.

In terms of complexity, a stamp duty land tax return can be compared with any complex self-assessment tax return. And it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to get it right as in most cases, HMRC take the information provided on trust unless there is something specific which raises query.

Most purchaser – clients are not tax experts and will rely on the advice given by their conveyancer as to how much stamp duty land tax they will be required to pay. However they must still make sure that the information they provide to the lawyer is correct, particularly as regards any second homes. Once the client has seen and approved the draft stamp duty land tax tax return, the conveyancer will upload it on the HMRC portal. Almost instantaneously, that conveyancer will receive back an electronic certificate in form SDLT5, confirming that the stamp duy tax return has been uploaded and received, even if the duty itself has not yet been paid. It is that SDLT5 which will then enable the conveyancer to register the transaction and pay the stamp duty from money held on account from the particular client. There are also some cases involving trusts, where the issues are so complex, that the conveyancer should advise their client to seek specialist tax advice before approving the stamp land tax return for upload.

Because of the complexity of some conveyancing transactions, there is always a risk of miscalculating the amount of duty chargeable on a particular transaction. The risk applies both ways. There’s firstly the risk that you may overpay stamp duty on a transaction because your conveyancer has not identified a legitimate relief to which you are entitled. Or you may accidentally fail to declare something which would otherwise have had the effect of increasing the tax liability which would otherwise be payable. Either way, the mistake is expensive.

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, Uncategorized

Dorset Council and Planning Enforcement

bruceandholly
Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

Speed is of the essence when it comes to the enforcement of planning regulations.  Unauthorised building work can become immune from planning enforcement in as little as four years.  For an authorised change of use, it is 10 years.  Although the law was changed on 25 April, 2024 to extend the enforcement of time limits from four years to 10 years in relation to unauthorised building work, that change does not apply retrospectively.  It means that unauthorized building work completed before that date will continue to be subject to the four year rule before it becomes immune from enforcement.  Nor are planning irregularities always a victimless crime.  Imagine if you were disturbed day and night by the revving of car engines because your next door neighbour had turned their domestic garage into a motor repair shop.  Wouldn’t you want your council to take action?

Nor are local authorities obliged to act against planning irregularities in every case.  Only when they consider it ‘expedient’ to do so.  But this does not absolve councils from the responsibility to investigate complaints of planning breaches, where they are reported, in order to make that crucial decision.  The council which refuses to do this and allows a planning irregularity to become ‘established’ by default, opens itself up to the possibility of ombudsman complaints.  Nor is it any excuse for the local authority to say that it does not have the resources to investigate planning irregularities.  Does it have the resources to pay out the compensation claims which will inevitably follow if it fails to act against planning irregularities where there is a need to do so?

Once a planning irregularity has been reported, it needs to be investigated.  Only then, can a decision be made as to whether it is ‘expedient’ to take enforcement action.  But that is only the beginning of a statutory process.

Information has to be gathered.  A decision made whether it is expedient take planning enforcement action or to ignore the irregularity because it is considered harmless.  Once it is decided that enforcement action has to be taken, a legal decision has to be taken as to the appropriate course of action to be taken against that planning-breach.  There are several choices.  Including a planning contravention notice; breach of condition notice; or the traditional enforcement notice, against which there is an appeal to the Secretary of state, which could, although rarely, lead to the cost of a public inquiry.  Once any statutory appeals against the enforcement process has been exhausted, the local authority have to follow up with prosecution if the breach continues.

It is also important that councils are seen to be robust when it comes to regulatory enforcement.  Otherwise it sends the wrong message.  That planning irregularities can be ignored.  It is why Dorset Council’s backlog of 900 cases is so problematic.  Many of those pending cases are already on their way to becoming immune from planning enforcement, as well as those cases which have already become immune.  If the council does not have the resources in-house to deal with it, and maybe it should consider outsourcing that function.