Grounds for possession in a regulated tenancy

The eviction ban ended on 31 March 2024.

We have more guidance on the eviction ban and the rent cap.

The relevant date is usually the start date of the protected tenancy unless: [1]

• the protected tenancy began before 8 December 1965, when the relevant date is 7 June 1966

• the protected tenancy was a furnished tenancy and was created before 14 August 1974, in which case the relevant date is 14 February 1975

• the tenancy became regulated by virtue of Crown property passing into the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners, when the relevant date is 8 February 1981.

Failure by the landlord to serve notice before the relevant date will often give the tenant a complete defence against proceedings. The tribunal can occasionally waive the need for the notice to have been served. The test to be used by the tribunal in deciding whether to dispense with this notice requirement is whether it is 'just and equitable' to do so. All the circumstances of the case must be considered. [2] Each case will be different and will turn on its own facts.

The rent must have been lawfully due. If the tenant has withheld rent because the landlord has not performed their obligation under the tenancy (for example repairs), it can be argued that the rent was not lawfully due. The arrears must be continuing at the time of the tribunal hearing. [3]

This applies to the tenant and to anyone living or lodging with them. The ground will be satisfied if any of these people is guilty of causing a nuisance or annoyance in the vicinity of the house. This ground is capable of relating to all kinds of behaviour. Noise nuisance is a very common complaint. [4] A single action is capable of establishing this ground, [5] although for this to be the case it is likely to have to be of a very serious nature. There is scope for arguing that it is not reasonable to grant an order for possession when the incident complained of is isolated, particularly where the tenant has shown good behaviour between the incident and the hearing. [6]

It is possible for a possession order to be granted despite the fact that the tenant was absent from the house and had no control over the nuisance. [7] There is scope, however, for arguing that under these circumstances it is not reasonable to grant the order. [8]

This case also covers using the house, or allowing it to be used, for immoral or illegal purposes. A criminal conviction is required for the case to be established. The actual use of the house is essential here. It is not enough merely that, for example, a criminal act occurred at the house. [9]

This applies where the condition of the house has deteriorated because of neglect by, or behaviour of, the tenant. It is also applicable to anyone living or lodging with the tenant, or sub-letting from them. Where the deterioration was caused by a lodger or sub-tenant, the tenant, to avoid being caught by this ground, must take reasonable steps to remove the guilty party.

This is the same as Case 3, except it covers any furniture supplied with the accommodation.

This case deals with the situation where the tenant has given a notice to quit and the landlord has contracted to sell the property, or taken other steps that would be seriously prejudiced if the tenant were allowed to remain. It is unlikely that repossession would be granted on this ground if the landlord had not taken any positive steps in respect of the property as a result of receiving the notice to quit.

If the regulated tenant assigns her/his tenancy or sublets part or all of the accommodation without the express permission of the landlord, the landlord may seek recovery of possession under this heading. Permission requires more than the absence of a prohibition in the contract. [10]

Consent to subletting or assignment can be given implicitly or expressly, either orally or in writing. It may be given before or after the subletting. Determining whether a landlord has acquiesced to a subletting or assignment will depend on the circumstances of each situation. [11] For a landlord to acquiesce, s/he must be aware of the sublet or assignation. [12] Where a tenancy is terminated as a result of a court order, any lawful sub-tenant becomes the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as they would have held from the tenant if the tenant's protected or statutory tenancy had continued. [13]

If the landlord reasonably requires the property for a full-time employee, possession can be sought under this case. However, for this ground to be used, the current tenant must be a former employee and have lived in the accommodation as tied accommodation, or the Secretary of State must have certified that the prospective employee is necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding or as an estate worker in agricultural holdings. Being "reasonably required" is not as strict a test as being "absolutely needed". [14]

The term 'family' relates to the landlord or the landlord's children (if they are over 18 years old), or their parents. The landlord's parents-in-law will also be included as long as they did not become landlord by buying the property from the previous landlord. With this case, the court is specifically instructed to think about whether granting the order would cause greater hardship than refusing the order. [15] The test of 'reasonably requiring' accommodation will be more difficult to satisfy than the equivalent test for assured tenancies, which is simply 'requiring' the accommodation. However, although the test relates to something more than mere desire, it is not as strong as "absolutely" needing the property. [16]

Where a tenant sublets the property and charges more than they are allowed to be charged themself, this case applies.

This relates to the situation where the accommodation is overcrowded to the extent that it is dangerous or harmful to the occupants, and the overcrowding is the result of having a lodger or sub-tenant whom it would be reasonable to remove.

This case covers a number of situations. In relation to them all, however, the landlord must have given the tenant a notice, no later than the relevant date, saying that this case might be relied upon.

As well as the notice having been served on the tenant who is being taken to court, there is the additional requirement that the landlord must not have rented out the property to anyone else on a regulated tenancy since 8 December 1965 without having served such a notice. (If a tenancy was a furnished regulated tenancy, the crucial date is 14 August 1974.) However, the tribunal could dispense with the notices requirements if it thinks that it would be just and equitable to do so.

The situations that the case covers are as follows:

• The owner-occupier needs the accommodation to live in themself, or for a member of their family to live in, provided the family member lived with the landlord during her/his last residence in the property.

• The owner occupier has died, and a family member who was living with them at their death needs the property to live in.

• The owner-occupier has died, and the person who has inherited the property needs it as a residence.

• The property is not suitable for the landlord, in relation to their work, and they need to sell it in order to be able to buy something more suitable.

• The landlord has defaulted on their mortgage and the lender has become entitled to sell the property in order to pay off the debt.

If the landlord acquired the accommodation with a view to retiring there, and served a notice on the tenant telling them that this case might be used, the case will be satisfied if:

• the landlord has now retired and requires the house to live in

• the landlord has died, and the house is needed as a residence by a member of their family who was living with them at the time of their death, or by the person who inherited the house

• the landlord has died, and their personal representatives want to sell it

• the landlord has defaulted on their mortgage, and the lender is entitled to sell it to pay off the debt

• the property is not suitable to the needs of the newly retired landlord, and they require to sell it to buy a suitable place.

As with Case 11, the notice must be served no later than a relevant date. Also, the landlord must have not have rented the property out on a regulated tenancy, to anyone, since 14 August 1974 without such a notice having been served.

However, the tribunal can ignore these rules about the notices if it considers it just and equitable to do so.

This relates to properties let for eight months or less. If the property has been occupied as holiday accommodation at some stage during the year preceding the beginning of the regulated tenancy, possession will be granted. There is a requirement that the regulated tenant was given notice that this case might be used no later than the relevant date.

Given the fact that it has not been possible to create new regulated tenancies since 2 January 1989, this case is now effectively obsolete.

This case deals with student accommodation that is let temporarily to non-students. If the property was subject to a student tenancy from the educational body at some point within the year before the beginning of the regulated tenancy, the educational body is entitled to possession. The regulated tenancy must be of no more than 12 months' duration.

Given the fact that it has not been possible to create new regulated tenancies since 2 January 1989, this case is now effectively obsolete.

Where the tenancy was a short tenancy, the tribunal will grant possession, provided that it has been properly brought to an end by way of a notice to quit.

Where a house is intended as tied accommodation for a minister or full-time lay missionary, but has been let on a regulated tenancy in the meantime, the religious organisation may recover possession. A notice that this case might be used must have been given to the regulated tenant no later than the relevant date. The tribunal must also be satisfied that the property is required for such tied accommodation and not for any other reason.

Where someone (not an ex-employee or ex-employee's widow) becomes a regulated tenant of property that was agricultural tied accommodation, the landlord will be granted possession if s/he needs the property for agricultural tied accommodation.

The tenant must however have received a notice that this case might be used, no later than the relevant date.

Where farms have been amalgamated and after the amalgamation property was let on a regulated tenancy to a non-farm worker, the landlord can recover the property if it is once again needed for tied accommodation. The landlord must have served notice that this case might be used no later than the relevant date.

The landlord has five years to recover the property under this heading following the approval of the amalgamation plans, or three years following the vacation of the property by the tied worker if they continued to occupy the property after the amalgamation.

Where farm property is let to the former farmer (or bereaved spouse) and the landlord needs the property back to be used again by a working farmer, this case can be used. The usual requirement about notice must be satisfied.

This relates to a house that has been designed or adapted for occupation by a person with special needs, but which is not being occupied by such a tenant. Where the landlord needs the property back for a person with special needs, possession will be granted under this case.

This relates to tenancies granted after 30 November 1980. Where a member of the armed forces rented out their property on a regulated tenancy, and informed the tenants by notice that this case might be relied upon, and they now need the property back as a residence, possession will be granted. If they need to sell the house to buy property more suitable to their needs, they may also repossess. Similarly, if they have died, their heirs may gain possession. If they have defaulted on their mortgage, possession will be given if the lender needs to pay off the debt.