More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Assured Shorthold tenancy
Benefits and care
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Regulation and planning
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment

Assorted bits


The post on Caridon Property Ltd v Monty Shooltz (gas safety cert and s.21) now has the approved transcript of judgment attached, which may be useful for anyone arguing such cases.

The section 21 validity flowchart wasn’t updated to include Caridon v Shootlz, but – making a rod for my own back – it will have to be updated to include the position from 1 October 2018 anyway, so I’ll give it a general refresh.

MHCLG has issued a ‘Review of social housing regulation: call for evidence‘. The closing date for responses is 6 November 2018. The question is how the current regulatory regime is meeting its objectives.

A new report by Prof. Rugg of York University on ‘The Evolving Private Rented Sector‘ comes in at an epic 250 pages. There is much in there for people to agree with, and indeed disagree with, sometimes simultaneously. The main thrust is that a piecemeal approach to regulation has not worked, that the PRS is now broadly divided into a higher end, and then a ‘shadow PRS’ for those in precarious housing circumstances and low income (roughly a third of tenants). The report also recommends that all PRS properties should be subject to annual ‘MOT’ of condition (thereby bringing in national licensing), and a simplified ‘consumer based’ regulatory approach.

Following a tweet about the annoyance of proceedings being ‘withdrawn’, (a long standing hobby horse), I was told that a) PCOL has a tick box to allow ‘withdrawal of a claim’, and b) at least one large county court has judicial forms for possession lists that have a box for ‘case withdrawn’. Now we know that PCOL has some problems with CPR compliance, but this is definitely not helpful. There is No Such Thing as ‘withdrawal’ of proceedings – there is Court of Appeal authority on this point. Proceedings are either discontinued or dismissed:

Under the CPR an action cannot be withdrawn. It may either be discontinued under CPR Part 38 or it may be dismissed. If an action is discontinued rather than dismissed, it is clear that a second action may be brought even if it arises out of the same facts as the discontinued action, although the permission of the court would be needed under CPR Part 38.7 if the action is discontinued after the defendant has served a defence.

So, if PCOL claims (or other possession claims) are being ‘withdrawn’ by PCOL check box, or judicial form, it actually matters whether they are being dismissed or discontinued. There are consequences. Perhaps PCOL needs looking at for CPR compliance in general…




Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner in the Housing and Public Law team at Anthony Gold Solicitors in South London. You can find him on Linkedin and on Twitter. Known as NL round these parts.


  1. Chris Daniel

    Wonder why everyone quotes the Caridon v Monty Shultz case, INSTEAD of the first case where the Gas cert issue arose , – Assured Property Services Ltd v Ooo, 2017 Edmonton County Court. ?



  1. Landlord Law Roundup Blog from 24th September - […] Some useful ‘assorted bits’ from Nearly Legal […]

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.