I have a huge backlog of cases to write up, but for various reasons, currently have neither the time nor the energy to do so (gestures at life generally). So I am very grateful to Georgie Rea of Garden Court Chambers for the following note of a Circuit Judge judgment on a possession claim where the issue was whether a failure to obtain a gas safety certificate covering the start of the tenant’s occupation permanently invalidated any section 21 notice. (NB an ex tempore judgment.)

As will become clear, the decision is distinctly contra that of the Circuit Judge in Cassell & Cassell v Sidhu & Sidhu that we recently considered (link). So, in the dying months of Section 21, there are still new, and differing, decisions on this issue at the same level. I very much suspect that any higher court decision on the issue will come too late to make a difference to pretty much anyone else apart from the parties involved, so there will be uncertainty up until the end. This is perhaps fitting.

While on the end of s.21, Georgie Rae also gives some interesting thoughts on how this case law might be applicable to new obligations (including the landlord database) under the Renters’ Rights Act.

Can I say again that I very much applaud any upward trend in ‘writing up cases and sending the write up to me’… Now over to Georgie Rae

Failure to Conduct a Pre-Tenancy Gas Safety Inspection Invalidates Section 21 Notices

The Defendant was represented by Georgie Rea of Garden Court Chambers, on instruction from Richard Harmer of Shelter.

Previous/related posts:

• The Trecarrell Conundrum
• The Trecarrell Conundrum revisited
• Redeeming the irredeemable. Gas Safety Certificates and section 21

On 28 November 2025, His Honour Judge Murch handed down his reserved judgment, following a hearing on 13 November 2025, in the case of Murphy v Maguire, dismissing the landlord’s claim for possession. The judge found that the Claimant landlord’s failure to carry out a gas safety inspection prior to the commencement of the tenancy constituted an irremediable breach of regulation 36(6)(b) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, thereby invalidating the section 21 notice, dated 28 January 2025, pursuant to section 21A(1) and section 21B(3) of the Housing Act 1988.

In the case before him, it was not disputed that there had been no gas safety inspection prior to the Defendant moving into the property in 2015, or before she had signed the most recent tenancy agreement with the current Claimant on 1 June 2022. The first and only gas safety inspection was conducted while the Defendant was in occupation of the property on 8 November 2024. The judge also found that on the balance of probabilities, the Gas Safety Certificate (GSC) following the 8 November 2024 inspection had not been provided to the Defendant prior to service of the section 21 notice on 28 January 2025. However, this was immaterial to the core issue in the case: the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection.

In his decision, HHJ Murch distinguished this case from Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield (2020) EWCA Civ 760, which concerned late service of an existing GSC, a remediable breach described as an “administrative oversight” (at (40)). Here, the failure was substantive: no inspection had been carried out at all. He cited HHJ Bloom in Byrne v Harwood-Delgardo  (H00HF202), who characterised such a failure as “a serious failure to comply with substantive requirements.”

HHJ Murch’s approach aligns with Byrne v Harwood-Delgardo and addresses perceived inconsistencies seen in other County Court decisions, including the Appellate decision in Cassell & Cassell v Sidhu & Sidhu (K01RG618). He stressed that Sidhu could be distinguished because, in that case, there was no dispute that there had been a pre-tenancy gas safety check (HHJ Clarke in Sidhu at [69]). HHJ Clarke’s comments, at (70), stating that “once two or more gas safety checks have been completed after the tenants have entered into occupation regulation 36(6)(b) GS Regs is no longer a prescribed requirement which must be complied with in order to rely on s.21A HA 1988,” thereby departing from the decision of HHJ Bloom in Byrne, were therefore obiter. In any event, as the Claimant in the present case did not purport to have completed two gas safety inspections since the Defendant was in occupation of the property, HHJ Murch held that “HHJ Clarke’s approach is not relevant to test I need to apply today, but to the extent that it is relevant, I do not adopt her analysis on the impact of a subsequent two certificates on regulation 36(6)(b).”

As this is the second decision of a Circuit Judge in agreement on this point, Murphy v Maguire clarifies the impact of non-compliance with gas safety obligations on section 21 validity, and (to adopt her own words) “with the greatest respect to her”, County Courts should decline to follow HHJ Clarke’s analysis on this point. HHJ Murch’s decision reinforces the distinction between regulation 36(6)(a) and 36(6)(b) established in Trecarrell: while late service of a pre-existing record can be remedied, the absence of any inspection before occupation is permanently fatal to serving a valid section 21 notice.

From 1 May 2026, landlords will no longer be able to evict tenants without a specific, valid reason, such as rent arrears or anti-social behaviour, which will be managed under a reformed section 8 process. The Renters Rights Act 2025 (RRA 2025) does not directly transplant the gas safety compliance requirements into the mandatory prerequisites for serving a valid section 8 notice.

However, the RRA does establish new prerequisites for possession, such as compliance with new database requirements, per section 82(3)(a) of the RRA 2025 (although this bar is expressly excluded for possession orders made on Ground 7A (anti-social behaviour) or Ground 14 (nuisance/annoyance)). The policy paper “Implementing the Renters’ Rights Act 2025: Our roadmap for reforming the Private Rented Sector”, published on 13 November 2025, indicates that the national Private Rented Sector (PRS) Database will start to roll out towards the end of 2026. To register their properties, landlords must upload key information, which will include GSCs; it follows that, without a GSC, a property cannot be entered onto the PRS Database, and any section 8 notice (on grounds other than Ground 7A or Ground 14) will be invalid under section 90 and 82(3)(a) of the RRA 2025.

The substance of the distinction, drawn by HHJ Murch, between administrative and substantive failures should also be relevant under the new regime; in circumstances where a landlord accidentally fails to update their PRS Database entry, but a new inspection has been conducted and a more recent GSC exists, this breach may be remediable by way of late upload. However, a landlord who deliberately reuploads an old GSC, where no new inspection has been carried out, should be held in breach.

The decision of HHJ Murch will be relevant for all notices served prior to 1 May 2026, and possession proceedings continuing on that basis thereafter. While the RRA will shift the landscape by abolishing section 21 notices, compliance with gas safety obligations will persist. This case serves as a timely reminder that procedural diligence and requirements with substantive obligations designed to protect tenants’ safety is not optional; it is fundamental, both now and under the reformed regime.