As of 20 March 2019 the Fitness for Human Habitation Act shall come into force. It sets to expand the protections given to tenants in relation to the condition of the property that they rent from their landlord. Prior to this enactment, the tenant’s principal protection was found under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“LTA”) which, essentially, only kicked in if there was a problem with the structure of the building or very limited amenities e.g. electricity and things of that nature. The Act amends the LTA to include the new regime.

The Act will apply to all tenancies granted after 20 March 2019 and any fixed term tenancy that becomes periodic after  20 March 2020.

So, what protection will the Act add? It will imply into any tenancy agreement that is less than 7 years duration (which will be practically all tenancy agreements for normal renters) a term that the property will be fit for human habitation at the start and throughout the tenancy. This involves a whole host of requirements that were not previously caught by section 11 of the LTA. The new section 10(1)of the LTA states:

In determining … whether a house or dwelling is unfit for human habitation, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters -

repair,

stability,

freedom from damp,

internal arrangement,

natural lighting,

ventilation,

water supply,

drainage and sanitary conveniences,

facilities for preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water;

in relation to a dwelling in England, any prescribed hazard;

and the house or dwelling shall be regarded as unfit for human habitation if, and only if, it is so far defective in one or more of those matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.

There are some who would think that the expanding of the protections can only be a good thing. However, those that have experience of the housing system know that some tenants, often aided by the Citizens Advice Bureau, will forward nonsense arguments to try to prevent the landlord from gaining possession or mounting a substantial counterclaim against the landlord for the condition of the property.

But, the Act specifically states that the landlord will not be liable for any issue that arises by the tenant breaching their own obligations under their tenancy agreement.

It can only be assumed that, whilst the intent behind the Act is to be applauded, it is certain that the Act will lead to a far greater number of arguments as to whether the breach is a result of the tenant’s conduct or whether the defect is ‘so far defective … that is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition’. We will need to see what definitions are given to these terms by the courts in due course, one person’s reasonably suitable is not necessarily the same as another’s.

For falling foul of the Act, the court may compel the landlord to sort the problem out. Failure to do so may end up with the landlord being in contempt. There does not appear to be anything in the Act which prevents the landlord obtaining possession under section 21 proceedings due to non-compliance. However, it will no doubt inspire tenants to mount counterclaims which could be used to get rental arrears due below the magical two month threshold which may scupper claims for possession based upon rent arrears.

In short, like with most legislation in this area, the idea is a good one but it probably lead to exploitation of the system which regrettably seems to be the norm for all landlords, the good as well as the bad.

Time will tell.

This article was written by Boys & Maughan litigator Matthew Champ. Call Matthew for advice on 01843 234000 or email him via his profile page on our website.