Beyond section 21: The future of no-fault evictions

Solicitor apprentice Florence Wharton explores the implications of Cassell v Sidhu

The Renter’s Rights Act is set to remove no-fault evictions in due course, heightening pressure on landlords who aim to remove unwanted tenants by serving a ‘section 21 notice’ on them, before that new legislation takes effect.

Commonly described as a ‘no fault eviction,’ a section 21 notice is a legal mechanism under the Housing Act 1988 that allows landlords in England and Wales to regain possession of a property at the end of an assured shorthold tenancy without needing to prove fault by the tenant. Such a notice can only be served if the landlord has met strict statutory requirements, including supplying tenants with certain prescribed information.

A recent County Court decision, Cassell v Sidhu [2025], whilst not binding, may have provided landlords with varying levels of compliance an unexpected lifeline. It could offer a renewed opportunity to serve notices in a legally compliant manner.

In a judgment few saw coming, HHJ Clarke held that a landlord’s failure to provide a fully compliant gas safety certificate before the outset of a tenancy, may well be ‘cured’ by providing two subsequent, compliant records.

This pragmatic reading cuts through a dense and misaligned network of housing regulations, and its effect may be one of real consequence in the closing months of section 21’s lifespan.

Before this decision, the prevailing view was that a landlord’s failure to provide a valid gas safety certificate at the commencement of the tenancy was a fatal defect. In other words, if the certificate was missing or non-compliant at the outset, the landlord was barred from later using section 21 to recover possession, even if they subsequently remedied the issue. This uncompromising interpretation exposed landlords to significant risk. Even a minor administrative slip could effectively block their ability to serve a section 21 notice and in turn prevent them from utilising this mechanism to gain possession of their property.

HHJ Clarke’s ruling signalled a clear shift from the rigid stance, indicating that subsequent compliance could remedy an initial failure.

The patchwork problem: Finding a solution to the regulatory knot

To grasp the significance of Cassell v Sidhu, it is necessary to delve into the complex framework of the Housing Act 1988, the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Information Requirements (England) Regulations 2015, as well as the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.

Together, these rules create a minefield for landlords. Fail to provide a tenant with the right gas safety record at the relevant time and the right to wield a section 21 notice can vanish entirely from your grasp.

With such an overlap of regulation, it is no surprise that the courts have long struggled to clearly interpret how these provisions weave together, and what the tightly interlinked system of compliance really means for landlords when considering gas safety requirements.

In Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield [2020], the Court of Appeal held that a landlord who failed to give a gas safety record before a tenancy commenced could still serve a section 21 notice, providing they gave it later. However, unsurprisingly, that case left questions unanswered.

What is the landlord never obtained a pre-tenancy certificate? What if it was incomplete? What if it was lost?

Cassell v Sidhu: The unexpected twist amid a compliance gap

The County Court decision in Cassell v Sidhu emerged as an unexpected disruptor, challenging assumptions about residential possession law rooted in former judgements.Undoubtably, in the final days of section 21, this decision could reshape how landlords approach possession claims.

In Cassell v Sidhu, the landlord had provided the tenant with a gas safety certificate before the commencement of the tenancy, but it was missing a critical statutory detail: the landlord’s name and address. That omission rendered the certificate defective. Two subsequent annual checks were carried out correctly, and the tenant received both records.

The central question before the court: can subsequent compliance erase an earlier failure? According to HHJ Clarke, in this instance, yes, it could.

The judge reasoned that the requirement to provide a gas safety record before a tenancy begins (the “New Tenant Requirement”) is not a permanent bar to serving a section 21 notice. Instead, if a landlord can show compliance with the “Existing Tenant Requirement” namely, that they have provided the last two annual gas safety records, then they are no longer in breach of the prescribed requirements. In other words, the past can be forgiven if the present is in order. This interpretation is indeed striking.

It was commonly presumed that to serve a valid section 21 notice, a landlord must have demonstrated an unbroken chain of compliance, beginning with the pre-tenancy certification and extending through all subsequent statutory checks, but Cassell suggests otherwise.

Square pegs, round holes: Simply unsuitable provisions?

The judgment is not without controversy. HHJ Clarke leaned heavily on the fact that landlords are only required to retain gas safety records for two years, or at least until two further checks have been carried out. It would be “unworkable,” the judge reasoned, to require landlords to prove compliance with obligations for which they are no longer required to keep evidence. That may appear reasonable at first glance; however, the law does not always align with such assumptions.

Indeed, this raises questions about legislative intent. The wording “until there have been two further checks” was only introduced after the 2015 Regulations created the prescribed requirements that now govern section 21 notices. Can we really say Parliament intended this retention period to define the scope of compliance for possession claims?

The decision has a certain logic to it, but it also underscores the broader, and perhaps deeper, problem: the legislative framework is characterised by significant complexity and structural deficiencies. Judges are being forced to interpret poorly drafted rules in high-stakes cases, often with no binding authority to guide them.

This raises a fundamental question of fairness: should tenants risk losing their homes on such a basis, or landlords face penalties when, in substance, they may have acted in good faith and in accordance with the intended purpose of the law?

The result is a fragmented body of authority, with Cassell now joining Byrne v Harwood-Delgado [2022] and Blagg v Gharbi [2023] as part of an expanding corpus of County Court decisions on gas safety compliance.

Perhaps the forthcoming Renters’ Rights Act offers an opportunity to bring much needed clarity; yet this prompts a further question. How will such reforms reconcile with the existing framework for gas safety compliance?

The endgame

With the Renters’ Rights Act now on the statute books, section 21 is living on borrowed time. Until the new regime comes fully into force, landlords are expected to flood the courts with possession claims. Tenants, in turn, are likely to challenge those claims on every available ground, including gas safety compliance.

In that context, Cassell v Sidhu could become a go-to authority for landlords hoping to salvage their section 21 notices. It’s not binding, but it’s persuasive and in the absence of higher court guidance, that may be enough.

The narrative may not conclude here. The Renters’ Rights Act does not expressly link gas safety compliance to the new section 8 regime. However, it confers upon ministers the authority to introduce secondary legislation that could achieve precisely that. Earlier government briefings contemplated conditioning possession rights on a landlord’s compliance with a proposed rental database, including the uploading of gas safety records. Whether such measures will materialise and what they would mean for the balance between tenant protection and regulatory burden, remains an open question.

Florence Wharton is a solicitor apprentice at Schofield Sweeney LLP based in their Leeds office. She is currently working within my firm’s property litigation team, alongside studying for my LLB (Hons) in Law & Legal Practice (Solicitor) with BPP University Law School.