Example
Tenancy was set up without EPC or EICR (they did not exist).
Status considered ‘illegally let’ due to the lack of compliance.
This assumes the contract is illegal.
Can the landlord then use a legal form (section 13 for example) or any other legal form if the contract itself is illegal?
I hasten to add it’s not my tenancy I am asking about. I am proud to say I have always followed compliance
The AST is not illegal. It continues as normal, and a Section 13 is perfectly legal.
Lack of an EPC, just means the Landlord cannot evict via S21 until they have issued one.
Lack of an EIPC just means the council could fine the Landlord.
The Landlords contract with the tenant is unaffected otherwise.
No, the lack of an EICR or EPC means a fine for LL and a rent repayment order of up to 12months rent for each infringenent but a tenancy agreement is still legal and can be verbal or just implied (with no comms between LL and tenant eg payments being received from friend of a tenant who’d left/ended their tenancy and the friend stayed and paid).
Under RRA verbal won’t be possible from 1 may as it will have to have clear terms. @David122 will correct me if I’ve go t that wrong
Good luck
Hi thanks I’d be grateful if you have links to your legal facts. My information is that a property cannot be let without an EPC. My legal understanding is you can’t assert a legal form i.e section 13 within an illegal contract. I.e. you can’t set up an illegal contract then use it’s terms to your advantage..
@Cherrie no it can’t be marketed legally without an epc
Doesnt stop LL and tenant signing a legal tenancy agreement.
See eg Shelter page 'Energy performance certificates, requirements and enforcement ’
Where it says eg
"
A landlord who is subject to the requirement to provide an EPC is[ prevented from relying on a section 21 notice"
Ie when there’s not a valid epc LL cant serve a s21 to evict/end a tenancy because there is no epc
Which means in those circumstances there is a tenancy with tenant having rights to remain, but LL cant use a s21 to end the tenancy. By def the law is recognizing a tenancy agreement can exist when there is no valid epc. So there can be a valid tenancy contract
Consider also tenancies which began before 2008 ie before there was such a thing as an EPC requirement for rentals. Those tenancies didnt become illegal just because EPCs were introduced as they were not new tenancies. The properties can have continued to be let entirely legally
EPCs do also expire and until future proposed rules on EPCs take effect in 2030 it will stay perfectly legal not to get a new one and it is only needed for a new tenancy. Again in those circumstances it is perfectly legal to be renting out with a valid tenancy and not have an epc. Look up /google ‘when a new epc is needed’
The tenancy contract itself wont specify that it’s not valid due to lack of epc etc
As a LL i have obligations under the law and health and safety law to provide a habitable property. It may say so in the tenancy agreement too. But if i provides an uninhabitable place i am in breach of the terms of the contract but the contract still exists and is legal. In exactly the same way if i breach other LL legal obligations such as on EPC that doesnt make the contract invalid
Im sure a lawyer could quote contract law at you too
Think of it like this also. If a tenancy agreement could be deemed invalid just because there were no EPC, a rogue landlord could fail to provide one then later say tenancy agreement invalid, tenant would have no rights and could even be prosecuted for trespass. That would be a nonsense and not the intent of those passing the epc legislation
Good luck
Well there’s your answer then…
Maybe I’ve misunderstood your question?
The fact that the landlord has let the property without meeting the legal requirements doesnt invalidate the tenancy. If it did, a large number of tenants would be on the streets.
As far as I recall, s13 of the Housing Act 1988 makes no reference to these prescribed requirements, so we have to assume that notice is valid.