header-logo header-logo

17 January 2014 / Daniel Robinson , Nathaniel Duckworth
Issue: 7590 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

A winning formula

web_duckworthrobinson

Is it now easier for landlords to obtain possession from assured shorthold tenants? Nathaniel Duckworth & Daniel Robinson report

Assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) were intended to provide landlords with a letting mechanism under which they could recover possession quickly and simply by giving notice, rather than having to establish any of the fault-based grounds for possession, such as the existence of rent arrears. They were a considerable inroad into security of tenure for residential tenants. Since 28 February 1997, the default position has been that any residential tenancy is an AST unless (among other exceptions) the parties expressly agree it is to be an assured tenancy, under which the landlord cannot recover possession simply by giving notice.

Landlords are, however, frequently frustrated by the process of recovering possession from well-advised—or, as many landlords would describe them, obstinate and opportunistic—AST tenants. Even with the accelerated possession procedure—which allows landlords to obtain a possession order without a hearing—it can take weeks to obtain a possession order and a further month or more to obtain

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll