Supreme Court rejects any more appeals by the tenant in the infamous Trecarrel House vs Rouncefield eviction case.
Letting agents and landlords can feel safer issuing gas safety certificates to tenants following the end of a landmark court case.
The Supreme Court has rejected any further appeals by the tenant and her legal team in the now infamous Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield case.
For over two years the case has rumbled on, each side arguing over the key legal point of whether a tenant can be evicted via a Section 21 notice if a gas safety certificate had been served after the tenancy has begun.
Following months of legal wrangling, in June 2020 the Court of Appeal ruled in a 2-to-1 majority decision that late serving of a gas safety certificate does not prevent a landlord from serving a section 21 notice on their tenant, provided the certificate has been given to the tenant before service of the section 21 notice.
The tenant in the Trecarrell v Rouncefield case had sought to overturn the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has now rejected the tenant’s application on the basis that it does not raise a point of general public importance, referring indirectly to the government’s plans to abolish Section 21 evictions, probably next year.
The judges received submissions from both parties’ lawyers, according to legal firm Anthony Gold, which acted for the landlord.
“The Court’s decision will be welcomed by private sector landlords who feared that a failure to provide the gas safety certificate before occupation permanently prevented them from recovering possession of their properties,” says senior associate solicitor at Anthony Gold, Sarah Cummins (pictured).
“It has been nearly two years since the Court of Appeal’s judgment and the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to hear the tenant’s appeal now brings some certainty to this difficult area of law.
“There is no requirement for the Supreme Court to explain its reasons, but it may be that the promised abolition of section 21 notices played some role in the court’s decision to refuse permission to appeal.”