A landlord has been told he will not be allowed to take a ‘shortcut’ by a judge in court while trying to issue a no-fault eviction to his tenant.
The landlord, referred to in court only as a ‘Mr Brown’, was trying to evict Amy Mbengue from her property and had made what is known as a ‘section 21 application’ at Reading County Court.
A section 21 notice allows a landlord to evict a tenant without reason but providing them with two months' notice once their fixed term contract has come to an end.
But Deputy District Judge Colin Passmore said the landlord’s application did not have ‘a shred of evidence to support it’. The application should have included details such as gas safety certificates and proof the deposit had been protected.
Judge Passmore urged the landlord to obtain some legal advice before submitting the application again.
A representative from Prospect Estate Agents had appeared in court on the landlords behalf, but Judge Passmore said they did not have ‘a right of audience’.
The judge told the estate agent’s representative: ‘Mr Brown cannot take a shortcut and send you along.’
Judge Passmore ordered the claimant to amend his particulars of the claim as required and to lodge supporting evidence with the court by August 26.
‘If that is not done within four weeks, the claim will be struck out’, the judge added. Ms Mbengue had attended court. Another defendant, a ‘Ndiaye’, had not attended the possession hearing on Tuesday.
The court heard the landlord may wish to attend court himself rather than getting a solicitor, something Judge Passmore described as being a ‘litigant in person’, which he said was allowed.
Landlords aren't required to provide their tenants with a reason for an eviction sought under s.21, hence the phrase “no-fault” eviction.
A previous s.21 possession application by a different landlord before Judge Passmore had been unsuccessful because the landlord had failed to ensure his tenant’s deposit was protected.
The court heard that the previous applicant - who was not a professional landlord - had never protected any of his tenants’ deposits in a deposit protection scheme. He was unaware that meant he could not issue a valid s.21 notice.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article