By Polly McBride
|
Published 03 September 2026
When discussing the Renters’ Rights Act (RRA), one of the most talked about changes is the abolition of section 21 "no fault" evictions. Since implementation on 1 May 2026, to gain possession, landlords must now rely on one of statutory grounds under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, as amended by the RRA.
Some grounds are mandatory, meaning the Court must grant possession if proved, while others are discretionary requiring the Court to assess whether possession is reasonable.
This change, coupled with the abolition of most shorthold tenancies in favour of periodic assured tenancies, fundamentally alters the landscape. Historically, section 21 provided a relatively straightforward route to possession, regardless of tenant fault. The focus of any litigation was often procedural, namely whether the notice and prescribed requirements had been complied with.
In contrast, the new regime requires landlords to establish and prove a specific ground for possession (see below). This is likely to mean that many possessions that previously would have been uncontested section 21 claims are now likely to become fact-sensitive disputes requiring evidential scrutiny by the Court and subject to tenant challenge.
As a result, managing agents face a significantly increased risk of professional negligence claims where deficiencies in administration, record keeping or advice may well prevent a landlord from evidencing a particular ground and will therefore either delay or prevent possession, with the potential to cause significant loss.
The main section 8 grounds that are likely to be contentious are summarised as follows:
Mandatory grounds
-
Ground 1 (landlord or family occupation): The landlord or a close family member intends to move into the property as their home
-
Ground 1A (sale of property): The landlord genuinely intends to sell the property
- Ground 2 (mortgagee possession): A mortgage lender is entitled to take possession following mortgage default
- Ground 7A (serious anti-social behaviour): The tenant has committed specified serious anti-social behaviour or criminal offences
- Ground 8 (serious rent arrears): The tenant has accrued the prescribed level of rent arrears at both the notice and hearing dates
Discretionary grounds
- Ground 10 (some rent arrears): Rent is lawfully due and remains unpaid
- Ground 11 (persistent late payment): The tenant has repeatedly paid rent late, even if arrears have been cleared
- Ground 12 (breach of tenancy): The tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement other than rent payment
- Ground 13 (property condition): The tenant has caused deterioration or damage to the property
- Ground 14 (anti-social behaviour): The tenant, occupier or visitor has caused nuisance, annoyance, or other anti-social conduct
- Ground 14ZA (domestic abuse): Possession is sought in circumstances involving domestic abuse in a supported housing context
- Ground 17 (false statement): The tenancy was obtained through a knowingly or recklessly false statement by the tenant
We anticipate that the grounds most likely to be relied on in practice are Grounds 1A (sale), 8/10/11 (rent arrears), 12 (breach of tenancy), 14 (anti-social behaviour), and 17 (false statements/reference fraud), as these arise most frequently in the mainstream private rented sector.
The requirement to establish a ground to obtain possession has significantly altered a landlord's (and their managing agent's) risk profile. The accuracy of tenancy administration, record keeping, and compliance processes will be of paramount importance as possession claims will depend on clear documentary evidence and audit trails. For example, if a landlord wishes to rely on ground 14, (anti-social behaviour), the Court will likely want to see evidence of complaints from neighbours or occupiers, incident logs, policy, or local authority and inspection records/correspondence.
If the agent has failed to keep a detailed and accurate record of the above (including notes of telephone calls and verbal interactions), the claim may well fail. It is therefore anticipated that there will be an increase in professional negligence claims against agents, with landlords who have been unable to obtain possession seeking recovery of their losses from agents on the basis either that there has been a failure to advise on or follow the correct possession route or to maintain adequately clear and detailed records.
The value of these claims is also likely to increase because the consequences of procedural failures are now more severe: under the previous regime, a defective section 21 notice could often be rectified by serving a fresh notice; under the new regime, defects in evidential preparation may result in possession claims being substantially delayed (as the section 8 procedure takes longer) or failing altogether.
There is also likely to be growth in claims arising from tenant selection and referencing. Industry research undertaken after implementation has already indicated that landlords are becoming more cautious about tenant vetting because removing unsuitable tenants has become more difficult. Put another way, the financial consequences of accepting a problematic tenant have increased considerably in a post-section 21 environment.
A further category of risk concerns discrimination and unlawful possession claims. Because landlords must now rely on specific statutory grounds, any attempt to encourage tenants to leave without a legitimate basis may attract scrutiny. Agents will, therefore, likely face greater exposure to allegations of unlawful eviction, harassment, retaliatory eviction, discrimination, and breaches of consumer protection obligations. Tenants who would previously have vacated following receipt of a section 21 notice may now be more willing to challenge possession proceedings and seek advice, increasing the likelihood of counterclaims and regulatory complaints.
In the medium term, managing agents should also anticipate increased complaints and redress activity. The RRA establishes a framework for a private landlord redress scheme and ombudsman system, intended to provide tenants with a simpler route for complaints and compensation. While mandatory participation requirements are being phased in separately, the overall direction of travel is towards greater accountability and easier access to dispute resolution. This is likely, however, to increase complaint volumes and expose deficiencies in property management practices that may previously have remained unchallenged. The position is compounded by the availability of AI to assist in brining complaints and challenges.
In terms of timing, the increase in claims is unlikely to be immediate. Possession disputes typically take several months to progress from notice service to Court determination. The first wave of section 8 possession cases began after implementation in May 2026 and will continue to work through the Court system during late 2026 and early 2027. Professional negligence and recovery actions against agents are therefore most likely to emerge once landlords experience failed or delayed possession proceedings and can quantify their losses. Accordingly, a noticeable increase in claims against managing agents would be expected from late 2026 onwards, with a more significant increase during 2027 as the practical consequences of the new regime become apparent and case law develops.
Overall, the RRA moves possession litigation from a largely procedural exercise to a more evidential and contested process. For managing agents, this creates increased exposure to professional negligence, tenant referencing disputes, unlawful eviction allegations, discrimination claims, regulatory complaints, and ombudsman referrals. The heightened importance of compliance, record keeping, and evidential preparation means that effective administrative and risk management procedures are now more critical than at any time under the former assured shorthold tenancy regime and will likely dictate the level of risk a managing agent faces going forward.
