Following the abolition of Section 21 'no fault' evictions, landlords seeking possession will generally need to rely on one of the statutory grounds under Section 8.
Ground 6
For landlords who are intending to evict a tenant in order to carry out substantial redevelopment, reconstruction or renovation works, ground 6 is likely to be the most applicable.
The key consideration in these cases will be whether the intended works are substantial enough and whether they cannot be reasonably carried out whilst the tenant remains in occupation. For this reason, minor repairs and cosmetic improvements will not be sufficient to satisfy ground 6.
Notice Period
For ground 6, there is a 4 month notice period before you can apply to the Court for a possession order to evict your tenant.
Ground 6 is subject to statutory timing requirements and landlords should take advice before serving notice to ensure the ground is available in their particular circumstances. Generally, a landlord cannot rely on this ground during the first 6 months of the tenancy.
Evidence Required
To rely on ground 6, landlords will be required to show genuine plans for significant works that require the property to be vacant. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to:
- evidence of the nature and extent of the proposed works, such as plans, specifications, drawings and schedules of work;
- any planning permissions, listed building consents or building regulation approvals that may be required;
- quotations, tenders or contracts from contractors;
- evidence that funding is available for the project;
- witness evidence explaining the works and confirming that they are genuinely intended to proceed; and
- evidence showing why vacant possession is required and why the works cannot reasonably be undertaken whilst the tenant remains in occupation.
Landlords should ensure they have sufficient evidence before serving notice, as the Court will consider whether the ground has been properly established.
Restrictions
The Court is likely to scrutinise carefully whether the works are genuinely substantial and whether possession is genuinely required. The more advanced the project is, the stronger the evidence is likely to be. Where the proposals are at a preliminary stage and the evidence mentioned above is not available, the Court may conclude that this is not sufficient to evidence genuine intention.
Landlords should also consider whether the works could be carried out in phases that would allow the tenant to remain in occupation of part of the property. The Court may take this into account when deciding whether possession is genuinely required.
Comments