Section 8 Ground 1 currently allows a landlord to provide two months’ notice if they or their spouse/civil partner wished to move into the property. The new Ground 1 extends this to the Landlord’s co-habiting partner, parent, children/grandchildren, parents/grandparents, siblings and children of a cohabiting partner; or children or grandchildren of any of the above. The tenancy being terminated must have been in existence for at least six months to rely on this ground. Crucially, the landlord is no longer required to have lived in the property before the tenancy started for the ground to apply. This does seem to leave it open to rogue landlords to engineer a relative to move in the property in order to remove a tenant.
The Government has considered this in the Bill, as the landlord is prohibited from marketing the property for letting for three months after expiry of the Ground 1 Section 8 Notice, but it appears that they are free to let the property after that. The Bill provides that the landlord could be fined or prosecuted in this scenario. However, this is only if someone reports the breach, which could be unlikely, given that the outgoing tenant will realistically be the only party to know this might have happened (after they vacate).
A new Section 8 Ground 1A has been introduced, allowing a landlord to serve two months’ notice where the landlord intends to sell the property. Again, the tenancy must have existed for at least six months. The addition of this ground represents a key concession to landlords, as selling a tenanted property is currently one the main reasons landlords wish to regain possession. As with the proposed new Ground 1, the landlord is prohibited from letting the property for three months after expiry of the notice relying on Ground 1A Section 8 Notice, but again we see potential for rogue landlords to avoid fines and prosecution if their conduct is not reported.
Section 8 Ground 2 allows mortgagees to serve notice in order to dispose of the property with vacant possession. Currently this ground only applies to mortgages granted prior to the start of the relevant tenancy. However, the Bill amends this ground to all mortgages, whether or not granted before the start of the tenancy. This is a major boost to mortgagees. However, sub-tenants of mortgaged properties will be less secure under the new proposals.
Ground 8 is currently the most heavily relied on ground for landlords trying to regain possession using Section 8 and provides for a two-week notice period. It applies where the tenant is two months in arrears of rent at the date of the Section 8 Notice and the date of a possession hearing. In the Bill, the notice period has been extended to 4 weeks. Also, any outstanding Universal Credit payments the tenant is due to receive are not to be included when calculating the arrears, if the Universal Credit payment would reduce the arrears below the two-month threshold.
A new Section 8 Ground 8A has been proposed in the Bill, which provides for a 4-week notice period where the tenant has been persistently in 2 months’ arrears or more. The trigger for Ground 8A is where a tenant falls into at least 2 months’ arrears, for at least a day, on at least three separate occasions. ‘Three separate occasions’ applies if in between those occasions, the amount of the arrears is reduced to less than 2 months’ for at least one day. If the tenant were to fall into more than two months’ arrears, on only one or two occasions, Ground 8A will not apply, but the landlord could still rely on Ground 8 (and the discretionary rent grounds).
This new ground is clearly aimed at dealing with a perceived loophole in the current legislation, in which Ground 8 cannot be relied on by a landlord where a tenant brings the arrears below the 2-month threshold (even by £1) before, or on the day of, the possession hearing. If Ground 8A is successfully relied on, the landlord will have a right to a mandatory possession order, regardless of whether the tenant clears the arrears. Landlords will want to ensure they have robust systems that monitor tenant payments, and which can identify persistent late payers of rent during a tenancy.
Another of the most widely publicised aspects of the Bill is the suggestion that it greatly expands powers for landlords to evict tenants owing to anti-social behaviour.
These powers seem to mainly consist of changes to Section 8 Ground 14. Ground 14 currently allows a landlord to immediately bring proceedings following service of a Section 8 Notice where the tenant is guilty of conduct ‘causing or likely to cause’ a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord or others. The wording ‘likely to cause’ has been replaced with ‘capable of causing’. This, in theory, expands what conduct can fall within this ground, as the landlord will only have to show that the tenant’s conduct is ‘capable’ of causing nuisance or annoyance, not that it is likely to do so.
We think this is unlikely to change the effect of Ground 14 in practice. Ground 14 is discretionary, which means that a Judge has to consider whether it is reasonable to make a possession order, even if the tenant is guilty of the conduct alleged. A trivial transgression by the tenant may be enough to trigger Ground 14, on the basis that it is capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance. However, it is very unlikely that the Court would consider such trivial conduct to justify a possession order.
Prerequisites to possession
Almost all of the existing preconditions required for a Section 21 Notice (including service of an EPC, gas safety certificate and How to Rent Guide) will not be a bar to a Section 8 claim, which is good news for landlords (although fines will still apply for non-compliance, where applicable). However, landlords should take note that the requirement that deposits be registered, and the deposit prescribed information be given will be a prerequisite to obtaining any possession order (unless the deposit is first returned to the tenant).
This contrasts with the current requirements, whereby a Section 21 Notice is deemed to be invalid if the deposit requirements are not complied with at the time of service of the notice. Under the new regime, it appears that the landlord can comply with the deposit requirements at any time before the possession order is made, in order to succeed in a Section 8 claim (although they will still be liable for compensation to the tenant if they failed to comply with the deposit requirements within the 30-day deadline).
Commentary
While much attention has focused on the abolition of the ‘no-fault’ Section 21 procedure, the effect of this may turn out to be overstated. ‘No-fault’ is often equated with ‘no reason’. The vast majority of competent landlords will have a legitimate reason for serving a Section 21 Notice, and those reasons appear to be covered by the extended Section 8 Grounds. We also note that some of the proposed new Section 8 Grounds, are in fact no-fault, including Grounds 1 and 1A, so ‘no-fault’ evictions will continue under the expanded Section 8 procedure.
In our view, the relevance of the abolition of Section 21 is that it now protects tenants from eviction without being given a reason, and the Court determining that the reason is a legal one. This is a welcome change.
It is worth mentioning that until the legislation is passed, Section 21 continues to exist. The Bill is in draft form and may be amended or revised as it moves through the legislative process in Parliament. If and when the Act is passed, there is likely to be a lengthy transitional period to allow landlords and tenants to become familiar with the new provisions, so Section 21 is still likely to be with us for some while yet.
* This was written by Paul Henson (Partner); George Cohen (Associate Solicitor) and Glenn Rhodes (Solicitor) from Irwin Mitchell’s Real Estate Disputes Team *
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
I would like some clarification on Ground 8A. In the event a tenant is subject to the UC 5 week wait and persistently pays his rent 5 weeks late does that mean there will be a mandatory eviction route open to the landlord whenever they get fed up with these persistent arrears?
For example I have a tenant who is supposed to pay rent on the 1st of each month. He actually pays it on the 3rd or 4th of the following month. So for 2 or 3 days every month he owes 2 months rent. This has been happening since the 1st January.
I don't want to evict him as he is a really good tenant but I would like the rent to be on time. It's horrendous for his mental health to be put in this position by UC.
What is to come with this bill is less than we have right now, and we all know it. The first few ASB cases brought will be very interesting.
Has no one in government considered the devastating consequences for tenants of being evicted via a Section 8 notice? With the exception of reclaiming a property for personal/family use or selling it all the recipients will walk away with the housing equivalent of a ‘record’. This will follow them around and in the current mismatch between supply and demand for private rental properties make finding a new home very difficult, if not impossible. They will be barred from social housing on the grounds that their conduct led to their eviction, and they therefore made themselves homeless. I am not in favour of repackaging bad tenants just curious as to what the government’s plan B is going to be when the cost of storing these people/families in bed and breakfast accommodation rivals what they are currently paying for illegal immigrants.
I guess that any tenants subject to a Section 8 eviction would, if they are not at fault, want to make sure the Ground for that is stated when they are looking to rent again, e.g. upfront to the Agents.
Ground 2 (Mortgagees) could indicate they've done nothing wrong.
Ground 1 and new 1A might actually raise a warning flag, I think Vanda: is the LLD using this when they are fed up with a tenant's antics and selling (or possibly installing a relative). This could be verified by the reference request of the previous LLD, as part of usual referencing.
For the other Grounds listed in the article, unless I've missed something then the tenant will have a 'record' and be at fault. If they are then barred from social housing for the reasons Vanda gives, and they are made aware of that risk by a current LLD; it might make them behave better (or at least be more careful about not breaking new arrears rules).
What still concerns me is: what will be the penalties for breaching tenancy agreement terms (those which aren't about rent payment) with no Section 21 mandatory evictions? And whether there are changes proposed to help with this?
I understand the relevant Ground for breaching tenancy agreement terms is currently discretionary, not mandatory. So under current legislation I'd be inclined to instead use Section 21 which I understand is mandatory.
Though if breaching a term can be classified as anti-social behaviour, then the proposed changed may then cover it.
As Simon says, we may have to wait and see on that one.
How does a landlord know a tenant has been evicted? They don't walk away with a 'record' because nobody can check in the way that you can with credit records.
to Martin Dell,
I think you could find out.
Possibly in tenant referencing (as I mentioned) e.g. when obtaining, or possibly not -which would be a 'red flag' to me, a reference from the previous landlord. If previous LLD had evicted, they'll have no reason not to say so.
Or other searches. I did my own search, apart from what the Agents did, of new tenants recently. That name came up with a rent arrears court case in Scotland; but at that time, and for years before, my prospective tenants were renting on the south coast of England (they had to move because their LLD was selling up!). Tenants now in and loving it - they'll probably stay for years.
I don't 'do' social media, but my girlfriend does. SO when I get a list of names for viewings by prospective tenants, she does a trawl of social media to find anything available.
I do the viewings of prospective tenants, and ask them any questions (a nice sort of interview where I also tell them useful stuff and commiserate about Govt. actions pushing rents up). Like where are they now and why wishing to move into my property (incl. whether notice to current LLD required); and their long-term intentions: are they looking to buy a place of their own (so they may not want to stay forever).
The whole purpose is to make it very difficult and very costly for the Landlord to obtain possession and control of the property they actually own.
Why are there so many extra hurdles to issue a section 21 at the moment ? No other reason than Expense and Delay for Landlords.
What is all this nonsense about calling landlords "rogues" all the time in every scenario!
It’s called ‘scape gloating’ and it’s hurting both landlords and more so, tenants.
Expect total crisis before anything changes if at all.
Seems volume of landlords issuing section 21s and selling up thus causing properties to let (especially in London) to become as rare as rocking horse droppings has caused the sxxt to hit the fan and Gormless Mr Gove has been forced to have a rethink.
All rubbish to drive us out, not even worth reading, we know it’s for Big Companies to take over. I wished landlords would stop saying build more they are flat out Building but not to House the Homeless what could they buy, they are Building to replace us which its why there’s an all out attack to get rid of us.
We all know that periodic comprehensive refurbishments are essential for the continued renting of any property. In my experience, this is seldom if ever possible when the tenant, their furniture and often considerable belongings remain in situ and of course there’s no guarantee every tenant will consistently cooperate, even if in their interest to do so. There doesn’t seem to be any provision for dealing with this. This will simply lead to deteriorated standards of accommodation over time as LL has no right to require vacant possession even after say 10 yrs. Result, properties don’t get
refurbed.
That is an excellent point - one we all know is right, but hasn't been addressed by anyone formulating the legislation.
Impossible with Tenants in place as said the property is full of they belongings and the longer they are there the more they have accumulated plus they are in your way. What time are you coming what time are you going what do you want that for, how long will be ? Clueless about what you are doing, materials or trades required but that stop them trying to lay down the law. I was trying to fix lock on a front door yesterday I had the boot left open in a dead end road, as I looked by chance I see Helmet & camera Traffic Warden had to make run for it and come back later, penalty’s far more important than a job of work, no it’s not easy even if property is empty, now you are expected to bring your materials and tools on a bicycle.
You are talking about reality, Michael, while those agitating for rental reform understand nothing about property maintenance or management.
Am I the only landlord who is appalled by this? Those landlords who are portfolio landlords, I’m not talking about someone who is going away for work and renting their house, I’m talking about those landlords who do it as a business. These landlords should accept that if the tenant rents the property they have it for as long as they want, providing they pay and behave. If the Landlord wants to sell, then they should sell with the tenant in occupation regardless, whether it decreases or increases the value of the property and the buyer should have the same obligation to the tenant.
No one seems to object when renting commercial property that the tenant has an automatic right to renew the lease and yet those who operate commercial properties do not concern themselves about this. A commercial lease with very few exceptions, can be renewed indefinitely. With both commercial and residential property, you are allowed to increase the rent to market rent. I would take a very different view of rent controls were imposed on residential property.
I have never increased my rent to existing tenants. I want to make it very difficult for them to move. If a tenants been with me for over 10 years I usually have to refurbish the property, the cost of which runs into thousands, which makes the rent increase insignificance when compared to the cost of renovating.
I am a large landlord and I believe my tenant should have security of tenure. They can stay in my property for life and I wish they would. Every time a Tenant leaves, it cost me money to refurbish the property,I want, and I imagine every other serious landlord wants their tenants to stay for decades. I am just grateful that those who are long stay, strangely, never want their properties refurbished.
The new ground 1, let me look in the mirror as if I was a tenant. Would I like it if the landlord having let to me, decides to relet the property to a relative. The answer is NO! it’s my home. Let the relatives find somewhere else to live.
the proposed change to ground 14 antisocial behaviour is bizarre, ‘is likely to cause harassment to my landlord’. Demanding that the landlord carries out repairs could be construed to some to be harassment. I agree that no judge would accept this point, all the judges I come across are pro tenant, I have done hundreds of evictions and had the brunt end of judges, who believe the tenant is always right, and is the victim. However, why should I have this fear hanging over me If I was a tenant? I would want it to be perfectly clear that my behaviour amounted to anti social behaviour, not ‘likely to cause a nuisance!’
I believe If you are going to let property as a home and take the tenants money then it should remain the tenants home for as long as they comply with the tenancy agreement. There should be no weasel ways to get the tenant out. I give my tenants a home for life and I’m proud to do this.
Jim Haliburton
The HMO Daddy
Basicaly I agree Jim,I bought all my properties with a view of ptoviding income so I want tenants in them, I have many good long term tenants who behaive and pay up on time, as you rightly say everytime a tenant leaves it costs us money, so it's great to have good long term tenants, my concern with the lose of sec21 is getting non payers out quickly
I too am in total agreement except for the part where the "property should be sold with the tenant in situ whether affects the property value or not".
The only pdrson who would buy that propwerty would be another landlord and he would dwfiately wanr to buy BMV. I go back far enough to remember that tenanted properties were only saleable at massive discounts to marlet value with sitting tenants.
I also add to what Andrew has said about the loss of section 21 is that another concern is, what constitutes proof of anti social behaviour? Obtainig proof is very difficult as no one, even those making the complanit want to get involved.
Paul, protected tenant or commonly known as sitting tenant, is a tenant that you can neither issue Section 21 nor Section 8. If such tenant does not even pay rent, you will not be able to evict them. Of course you can proceed to County Courts claim for the debt that the tenant has created due to non payment of rent. Get a judgment, send the bailiff and confiscate their television, sell it in the auction ...... See The Rent Act 1977. Under the new legislations you will lose the right to go down Section 21 root that brought AST back in 1988. You will still be able to used Section 8 which technically make future tenancies as Assured ones. Section 21 paved the way for Accelerated Possession Claims, meaning no hearing. Whereas Section 8 goes through a proper hearing. You can bet your bottom dollar that the tenant, with the advise of a clever lawyer, all of the sudden will make a counter claim, at the hearing, to clog the system.
Agree with particularly the last bit of what Ferey says.
A tenant not paying rent for several months sent his solicitor to Magistrates Court hearing with a rubbish argument,
But cheaper for that tenant to pay solicitor to turn up than paying rent for the period that delay bought him.
My revenge, some years later when he was least expecting it (and near to the claim deadline timescale) was sweet.
Henry, in many cases if the tenant has less than £3000.00 saving, that is usually the case, then they qualify for legal aid. That does not end there. If they claim for damp, although fake, then they have a counter claim. Usually you withdraw your claim on the rent arrears, and they withdraw their claim for damages for damp or disrepairs. Again, that does not end there. A chartered surveyor will be instructed by the tenant's solicitors to come up with a report upon the state of the property. Who pays the surveyor? Of course Mr. John Smith the taxpayer. Bearing in mind, our properties mainly built in 1920, 30, 40, 50, 60 , I am not a surveyor, but send me in and I am bound to come up with even minor things. You will fix whatever needed fixing and now you will have to send your own chartered surveyor, since the first one was instructed by your tenant's solicitors. Who pays him? Of course you do. Meanwhile the arrears are again accumulating. I am therefore cutting my loses short and leaving the PRS after four decades. For those of you still staying in, I wish you best of lucks, since you will definitely need it.
That's just nonsense. You're suggesting that tenants should effectively have the rights of a homeowner. The only way to do that should be to be a homeowner.
The intention of government is not that you have a tenant for life it is that you have a tenant living rent free for life
we will not just have rent caps they will impose rent reductions so expect to be ordered to reduce you rent by the rate of inflation every time costs go up you will be forced to reduce rent by the same amount and of course the new regulations will result in the councils collecting tens of millions in fines they will rig enforcement and rules in such a way that no landlord will escape multiple fines which then of course is proof that no landlord is fit to manage their properties which will then result in council taking your properties under their control
I have tenants who have been with me for over 30 years at well below market rents i would have been happy for them to stay for life, they are now being evicted because of this bill, I am sure they are delighted at what the politicians and the gangs have done for them
Michael Foley, my first hand experience is as yours, but worse. I know that Jim halliburton does not have a very good reputation and his offices look tatty. However bad tenants will give landlords a bad name l took a tenant to arbitration over the deposit and won most of it. She tells everyone that l kept it !
.
You’re right edwin perhaps you can help me explain why because I’m the only landlord in the area who has a no eviction policy. I only evict tenants who refuse to pay their rent, I will not Evict a Tenant, who cannot pay their rent, I have a tenancy charter which gives the tenants a no rent increase for the life of the tenancy and the highest service standards of any landlord I know. I will not refuse to house, a homeless person who is genuine, even though they have no money, if I have suitable accommodation and I have housed numerous of people this way. I will not refuse a tenancy just because the tenant does not have any money.
We have refurbished my Letting shop. You may recollect that the whole street where my Letting shop was situated, was nearly all derelict and I have without any grant money brought the street into productive use along with numerous other direlect properties. I’ve had numerous battles with the council over planning and mostly won which means the council were wrong to take enforcement action against me. I help those who wish to become landlords to become landlords, offering a free mentorship. I take an active part in landlord, liaison committees and I am not popular as I tell the council the truth, not in a bad way, in a constructive way, but this is considered unpalatable.
In return, I am abused castigated and have groundless and disparaging comments made against me! Edwina, perhaps you could have the courtesy to tell me why?
Andrew, don’t worry about evicting a tenant for nonpayment of rent using section 8 grounds, 8 and 10. I’ve done it hundreds of times, and succeeded every time. I do not say this to boast, but to reassure you that evicting for nonpayment of rent is quicker. than using section 8 and section 21 and is not difficult. If you need any help call me.
Jim HaliburtonTheHMODaddy
Jim maybe you are the only portfolio landlord to think like that if a Tenant rents a property from me he will never have the right to have it as long as he wants, he can rent it as long as I want to. I bought with at high interest rates with variable rate Commercial loans. I did not buy it for someone else or for some other person to take control of my property that being the case I wouldn’t have done it ever.
That kind of thinking might be OK for recent Portfolio B2L Landlords who got property and money for old rope ie, 100%— 125% interest only
Mortgage’s for 1 or 2% many had them less than one %.
What have they got to loose and everything was tax allowable and deductible.
I am not that landlord but putting my own hard earned
money at risk putting down 50/60 or 100k on a property, so don’t give me this I’ll decide not someone from to street, its very noble of those guys to offer my property to other regardless of the fact it my freehold property not B2L system property owned by financial institution's.
Of Course many were using various Companies along the route I’ll park that one.
Jim I appreciate you are HMO Daddy & offered training to many years ago, hats off for that and also for the offer to help Andrew we can’t look a gift horse in the mouth those day.
Very well said Michael!
I started in 1991, before finance for buy to let was available. I used every penny I had and credit cards to buy my first property. It is Interesting, you did not pick up on the automatic right to renew that is given for commercial property. I get told that smart investors have pulled out of residential into commercial property. I can see a little difference between operating commercial property and residential when section 21 goes.
Michael, please do not sell up there is a desperate need for accommodation and you are providing a valuable service.
If you do decide to sell up, give me a call!
Jim Haliburton,
The HMO, daddy
in those days jim it was a straight forward bank loan normally 4% over base
Hi Jim, It is perfectly possible to have a clause in a commercial property lease so that there is not an automatic right of renewal. Many commercial leases have exclusion clauses to that effect which the potential commercial tenant has to sign before entering into the contract. When the exclusion clause is in existence the tenant must vacate the property at the end of the contract. The landlord may be prepared to offer a new lease before the end of the term; but there is no obligation for him to do so. Therefore, whether a tenant can renew his/her lease will be up to the landlord.
It is interesting that people who don't seem to be unduly concerned about the loss of Section 21 frequently have entered the buy to let business after Section 21 was in existence.
Many older landlords, who were involved in the business prior to that time know the big problems that resulted. It was virtually impossible for an ordinary person to rent privately. There were alternative forms of letting in existence and those were used by landlords, but, otherwise, people sold their properties. I remember the Rent Act days and the time when assured tenancies were in operation - there was virtually no private rental sector. It will take time for that state of affairs to come about again because the new legislation will be phased in, but people with highly expensive London properties worth several million pounds are not going to just hand over the keys to it/them so that somebody can rent indefinitely.
Jim
My name is Edwin Morris, not Edwina, highly insulting. Further l offered to proof read your book, which you sent to me and you addressed me by my surname, which l objected to and found very demeaning, probably deliberately. Further l advertised property 2 miles from darlaston, it attracted an enormous response, so l referred some of them to your company which attracted negativity. As l recall you advised when the government paid tenants direct 85 % of them kept your money Further opposite your converted shops their is a newish pedestrianised shopping centre with two supermarkets in it and a library, and it abuts a pleasant conservation type area. Further the council demolished two modern tower blocks, not far from your shops, why destroy a lot of modern flats ? Perhaps they couldn't control the tenants ? While didn't you buy those tower blocks before they were demolished, they contained a lot of flats , ideal for a person who refurbish property and lets it out.
Jim, you know its not possible to sell for long term landlords, tell me how, indexation and taper relief is gone, we are locked-in and held to Ransom.
Property bought years back when I was Insuring a house as an example for £110.00 pa, the same house cost me £692.00 to Insure other day, it’s my contention the house isn’t worth anymore it’s still the same house, the value of the money has weakened that much and cost you 7 times approx more to build now, so we are being taxed on inflation.
Ok for older real landlords sell now pay 28% C/gains tax & with reduced allowance, then die with-in 3 years the C/gains tax is washed away and then pay another 40% Inheritance tax, brilliant so we are locked-in and no exit play allowed.
Even put some in a trust in Trust for kids or grand kids pay 28% C/gains going-in again if you die in 3 years they’ll bring the whole lot back into your Estate again for Inheritance tax purposes and tax you on the lot again at 40%. the 28% wasted.
So it all very simple for simple minds, reality is very much different.
Please sign the petition:
"Reverse provisions in Renters Reform Bill to remove Assured Shorthold Tenancies"
There needs to be an enormous number of signatures for this petition to get anywhere
We have head hell from next doors tenants with their childminding, after school care (1 to 3 children) and this has been going on for 3 years now. Been told to F'O. by the male tenant but the female is trouble or Scum. Our lives have been destroyed having to put up with the childrens running around which is only so because other children are in the house making a free for all. We finally complained but this is still going on. Is this grounds for Section 8 based on the causing a nuisance and annoyance? I sleep 3 hours per night due to the stress of having our peace destroyed by these low class renters.
What would the landlord do if we go to see him again?
Get in touch with Environmental Health dept. of your local council, to see if/what any action might be taken on noise/disturbance grounds. They may claim a shortage of staff and be unwilling to act; but part of the idea is to ascertain what they might do, and what rules are being broken. (They may know of other potential rules in such circumstances - unlikely to be the first they've had complaints about.)
Not sure, but the number of children being cared/childminded for may be under a number of kids threshold for town planning enforcement action being taken. (Don't know if they need to be registered to operate with an official body: if they were you could possibly complain. You could always Google childminding rules)
Armed with knowledge of what rules they may be breaking, go to the landlord and urge him to take action under Section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act. Under that section the landlord doesn't have to give/state a reason for eviction (unlike section 8).
Do section 21 ASAP, before it is abolished by this Government or the next one.
Say to Landlord (and anyone official you approach how it is affecting your health) and to the Landlord that if he/she gets rid of the current tenants such is the demand for rented property they might get a better replacement tenant who may be better for the landlord to deal with (guessing from what you say they are not ideal tenants).
AND if re-let then the landlord is likely to be able to demand a higher rent.
Best if landlord does this before general election (either well before May 2nd of Autumn election). Which is why I served a Section 21 about a month ago (giving time for eviction if tenants don't leave within the 2 months S21 notice period).
Presumably you have already tried Citizens Advice for helpful advice?
Does your insurer have a free legal advice helpline?
If so may be also worth a try before approaching the landlord. All ammunition to encourage the landlord to act (as s/he will likely take some financial 'hit' in the short term between existing and a new tenancy).
As this thread is quite old there may be limited input from other readers: hence me writing something that hopefully helps. I just happened to have subscribed to links.
Please login to comment