Why is retaliatory eviction not against UK Law?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why is retaliatory eviction not against UK Law?

    Hi All,

    So after much reading I would like your views on retaliatory eviction in the UK.

    It seems that Tenants have no say. They complain, they get chucked out legally without reason!!

    While I know this will make things very difficult for the LLs that have nightmare tenants, what about the good tenants?

    The good tenants who pay their rent, look after the property, and yet when they ask for repairs or find the LL has broken the Law - what then?

    They are left having to look for a new property, uprooting kids, paying for removal charges and fees, having the headache of transferring services - surely this is wrong?

    I find it very unfair.

    Please feel free to comment for or against this issue - would it help you as LLs or LAs? Does it work overseas?

    No landlord chucks out a tenant unless they absolutely have to. Doing so inevitably involves the expense of refurbishment, voids, council tax, utilities, and reletting fees.

    If a landlord is willing to pay all those things to get rid of a tenant, the tenant must not have been a 'good' tenant, they must have been an absolute nightmare.


      What do you mean by "retaliatory eviction"?

      It would seem to be eviction in response to some bad act by the tenant.
      Why should a landlord have to keep letting to a tenant that is acting badly?
      Beyond the 4 months or more it would take to get them evicted, of course.


        retaliatory eviction : Web definitions

        "an eviction in reprisal for the tenant's good-faith complaints against the landlord."


        Tenant complains to LL about repairs, LL does not do the repairs and the EHO become involved, LL does the repairs forced by EHO but evicts tenant with S21 for complaining.

        Tenant pay LL a deposit, LL does not protect deposit, T takes LL to court for penalty, LL evicts T with S21 for taking him to court about deposit.


          As a Landlord it's my expensive asset that I'm allowing someone to use for a fair rent. I would feel uncomfortable if I wasn't able to evict them - for any reason - in the proper way... and not in the fixed term etc.. While my experience, thus far, has been only of pretty good Tenant / Landlord relationships, I mused over issuing a Section 21 to some Tenants recently because they've broken a lot of things, I've had to pay out for, in their first year. Despite their protestations that they treat the house as if it were their own, I just know I never broke anything when I lived there a few years ago. I looked at this objectively and I have decided to give them another fixed term because - a) I don't want a void, b) they always pay their rent, c) there's not much else they can break... if I was feeling in a retaliatory mood, I could have just let the term expire... but I'm not childish (my other half would disagree) and it's a business proposition. I don't think it's unfair for someone to have use of my expensive asset (in exchange for a fair rent) only while I want that to be the case.

          While the Landlord / Tenant relationship might be skewed in some ways... it is also skewed in others, right? It is not a relationship of equals.

          On one hand, you might think the Landlord has the upper hand, because they're the one with the asset that someone else is renting. But, think again, and you can easily see that the Tenant has the upper hand, because they're the customer - and any sensible Landlord should look after their customer and, remember, the customer is always right. This is without looking into anything from the angle of the Law... which many would - objectively - say is in favour of the Tenant (Section 21 aside, maybe).

          Just musing... again...


            Originally posted by JK0 View Post
            No landlord chucks out a tenant unless they absolutely have to. ......
            I'm sure that is the case for JK & other posters on LLZ but sadly there are landlords who will evict tenants for complaining or raising, say, disrepair issues..

            Yes it is unfair..

            refrisby when you "not against UK Law" do you mean England (& Wales but some is different..), Scotland or Northern Ireland?? The law is different. assuming England and you are questioning s21 fairness you need to ask Thatcher who introduced the Housing Act 1988 which includes the famous/infamous "Section21" (and similar in Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, in that Act Section 33..).

            S21 has been challenged under ECHR - for a Housing association - see..
            & see..

            There is nothing to stop a tenant or (say..) a housing charity or pressure group challenging the S21 process through a test case: That there hasn';t been one gives you the answer - that perhaps you don't want.

            (I think that..) if you look on Shelter Legal (think there's a free trial..)
            there is a section on 'uman rights & possession proceedings...

            But also see,,,

            If you want matters changed then, as you know, there is an election next year...
            I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...


              Thank you Hippo and Artful for your views and help

              I am reading all the links with great interest


                s21 repo is not overtly retalitory since it is 'no fault' and no reaslon is required or can be infrerred, unlike s8. Indeed s21 can take2+ month longer.
                Personal LL circumstanacess can change, esp for 'accidental' LLs.
                Rentiing rather than home ownership is fast becoming a lifestyle choice/necessity
                I would suggest a PRS LL should be able to optimize his return on a £100+ asset within a reasonable trimescale.


                  So you think if a T successfully sues a LL they should continue using the L's asset and the LL should continue with the relationship as if nothing happened? Bonkers.
                  "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

                  What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.


                    Or unsuccessfully even.


                      From the Rugg Review of 2008, not much in the way of change since then;


                      "Discussion is currently underway as to whether change should take place to the current legislation on tenure. For example, lobbyists have highlighted the instance of what is termed ‘retaliatory eviction’ which entails landlords giving tenants notice to quit if they complain about property condition. Changes are sought to s21 of the Housing Act 1988 so that landlords could be challenged if retaliatory eviction is suspected."

                      "Tenants right groups argue that there are two ways to deal with the incidence of retaliatory eviction. First, it should be possible for tenants to take the eviction notice to a property tribunal, so that a judgement could be made about whether the eviction notice has been served in response to the tenant trying to exercise their statutory rights. Second, it should be the case that s21 notices could only be available to landlords who pass some sort of management quality test, perhaps by being a member of an accreditation scheme. Crew (2007) indicates that measures are in place in other countries to deal with the incidence of eviction where a tenant has complained,"

                      "To this end, it could be argued that changing s21 constitutes a response to a symptom rather than a cause of problems. It might be more appropriate to aim to remove from the PRS those landlords who would rather evict a tenant than deal with necessary repair."
                      I also post as Moderator2 when moderating


                        It is not realistic to achieve preventing retaliatory evictions when the landlord can evict 'at will', without reason through s.21.
                        The article quotes above only proposes plenty of additional red tape difficult to implement, and it is clear to see through these proposals to the actual agenda: Compulsory licensing. It's not difficult to guess which way they lean politically either.

                        If the main concern are evictions in relation to disrepair, then that already exists for s.8 evictions, so there is no need to dream up new 'property tribunals' and that could just be extended to s.21.
                        However, from what we read on these forums disrepair claims are often abused by tenants as they seem to create a major hoop for the landlord to go through.


                          I have mentioned on here before of my retaliatory eviction.

                          Landlord refused to stop water coming in the windows, refused to stop wind coming in the windows, refused to repalce the windows that were dropping out. Nails and battens were in place to stop them falling out. Refused to rectify damp patches on the wall.

                          The EH dept stated it was detremental to my health.

                          After 4 years of no action from the landlord, I engaged a solicitor AND a Barrister

                          Once the council had been round and hit him for about £ 26000 of repairs on health fire and safety and HMO issues ( wired fire alarms, windows etc ) I received an S21.

                          There was nothing I could do, as money is not limitless, and when the landlord lies about he is not responsible for the exterior of the building, and his solicitor backs him up, no one with limited funds can ever win.

                          THAT is retaliatory eviction, and tenants have no power to stop it.


                            Originally posted by Wannadonnadoodah View Post
                            So you think if a T successfully sues a LL they should continue using the L's asset and the LL should continue with the relationship as if nothing happened? Bonkers.
                            I didn't say I thought this at all. I was asking for opinion and gave this as an example.

                            I do however personally think that it's business and if either the T or LL breach contract then they should expect reprisals and not take it personally.

                            You make the bed you lie in it.

                            If I complained about repairs and LL did nothing then I would take it to the next level until it was resolved, nothing personal to the LL but I am paying for a service, I am paying to use the LLs asset as my home and I would be upset if LL served me a S21 simply because I had asked for repairs. I personally would ALWAYS give the LL many chances to rectify the problem before escalating the problem.

                            I think S21 should NOT be given if in retaliation to something that could have been remedied, but was not when the chance was given.

                            Just my personal opinion - beat me with it if you want
                            Last edited by redfrisby; 26-05-2014, 10:37 AM. Reason: spelling!


                              Terrible story ram: However, an excellent summary of why "something must be done", as clearly even with your knowledge and resources there was "no power to stop it", so what hope the average tenant who's doesn't even know how to contact CaB.

                              See CaB report here..

                              & from RLA (they aren't keen on change.. quelle surpise...)
                              & also..
                              I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...


                              Latest Activity