Charlotte Davies notes the potential procedural, evidential and litigation implications of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025: Will someone think of the courts?

Charlotte Davies notes the potential procedural, evidential and litigation implications of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025: Will someone think of the courts?

Much of the current commentary on the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has centred on its implications for landlords and tenants: on the new rights, duties, and commercial adjustments each must make. Far less attention has been paid to the position of the courts, despite the fact that the Act represents one of the most significant procedural and substantive shifts in possession litigation for decades. Its impact will be felt not only in the volume and nature of cases coming before the judiciary, but also in the evidential burdens, the balance of discretion, and the evolving relationship between the courts, tribunals, and the new regulatory bodies established under the Act. The following analysis therefore considers the legislation from that perspective, examining how it is likely to reshape the conduct, complexity, and purpose of possession proceedings in the post-section 21 era.

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will significantly alter the landscape of possession proceedings in the county courts. With the abolition of section 21 “no-fault” evictions, one of the simplest and most procedurally straightforward routes to possession will disappear. Claims will instead depend on statutory grounds requiring proof of fact and judicial assessment of reasonableness. This change is expected to increase the proportion of defended cases, as tenants will have greater scope to contest the factual or proportionality basis of eviction. For the courts, the emphasis will shift from document-checking to substantive determination of evidence and justification, potentially resulting in longer and more complex hearings.

Procedurally, the courts will lose the accelerated possession route and see a heavier reliance on the ordinary Part 55 process, which may itself require revision. Listings are likely to become more congested, particularly in courts already burdened by housing work, as more hearings will require oral evidence and active case management. The evidential focus will move towards issues of conduct, arrears, property use, and the landlord’s stated intention, all of which carry a subjective element. Judges will be expected to give reasoned decisions balancing property rights against the tenant’s right to respect for their home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with a resulting increase in complexity and in the potential for appeals.

The statutory grounds for possession have been recast and expanded, including provisions for sale of the property, landlord occupation, and persistent breach. These will demand greater scrutiny of motive and proportionality. Alongside this, rent and disrepair disputes are expected to increase, with some issues diverted to the First-tier Tribunal or the new private rented sector ombudsman. However, the county court will still encounter many linked claims combining arrears, counterclaims, or allegations of retaliatory eviction, requiring careful coordination between jurisdictions. Judges may be asked to stay proceedings or take account of prior determinations made by the ombudsman.
The new regulatory framework, including a national landlord and property database and enhanced local authority enforcement powers, will also feature in possession litigation. Questions of registration, compliance, or licensing may affect a landlord’s entitlement to possession or rent, creating new preliminary issues for judicial determination. The overlap between enforcement and civil proceedings will therefore become more pronounced, particularly where non-compliance renders a tenancy unlawful or restricts recovery of rent.

The Act’s restrictions on discrimination, such as prohibitions on blanket bans against families, benefit recipients, or pets, may give rise to an increase in Equality Act and human rights arguments within possession claims. Courts are likely to see more hybrid claims raising both housing and discrimination issues, and judges will need to assess proportionality and justification in light of these overlapping rights. Such cases may also involve public-law style reasoning, especially where local authorities are involved or where the conduct of public landlords is challenged.
During the transitional period, the courts will have to navigate a mixture of legal regimes. Section 21 cases will continue until existing fixed-term assured shorthold tenancies naturally expire, while the new periodic system will phase in through commencement orders. Determining which regime applies to a given tenancy will require close reading of commencement and saving provisions, and early appellate guidance will be necessary to resolve disputes about the validity of notices served before and after the Act comes into force.

Overall, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 transforms possession proceedings from a largely procedural exercise into a more fact-driven and discretionary jurisdiction. Judicial focus will move towards evaluating reasonableness, proportionality, and fairness in each case. The result will be a system that provides greater tenant protection but places increased evidential and time burdens on the courts, requiring additional judicial resources, training, and procedural refinement to manage the new complexity effectively.

In addition to its effect on possession proceedings, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will also have an indirect but notable impact on the treatment of disrepair issues within the courts. Although the Act does not itself create new repairing obligations, it operates alongside a broader legislative and policy framework aimed at raising housing standards, extending the Decent Homes Standard to the private sector, and strengthening tenants’ access to redress. As a result, the courts are likely to see disrepair emerge more frequently as part of multi-issue housing disputes rather than as standalone claims. Allegations of poor condition or failure to carry out repairs may increasingly feature as factual and proportionality considerations within possession cases, particularly where eviction follows complaints about habitability or health risks.
The establishment of the new Private Rented Sector Ombudsman, coupled with enhanced investigatory powers for local authorities, is intended to divert a portion of disrepair complaints away from litigation. Nevertheless, judicial involvement will remain necessary in cases where tenants raise disrepair as a defence or counterclaim, or where enforcement of works requires a court order. Judges may also be required to consider the effect of prior findings or recommendations by the ombudsman or a local authority, and to determine whether proceedings should be stayed or coordinated with those external processes. This will add procedural nuance and may lead to greater overlap between regulatory enforcement and civil adjudication.

If the government proceeds with extending the Decent Homes Standard and Awaab’s Law to private landlords through secondary legislation, disrepair issues will take on a more prominent role in assessing the reasonableness of possession and in determining the proportionality of eviction under Article 8. The likely result is that, while the Act aims to promote earlier and alternative resolution of property condition disputes, the matters that do reach the court will tend to be more complex, involving multiple strands of statutory, factual, and human rights analysis. For the courts, this will reinforce the shift towards a more evaluative and context-sensitive approach to housing cases, in which disrepair operates not as a discrete cause of action but as an integral element of the broader inquiry into fairness and compliance within the private rented sector.
In conclusion, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 marks a decisive change in the character of housing litigation. Overall, the Act is likely to reduce volume but increase intensity: fewer routine claims, but more contested, multi-issue cases demanding longer listings, multiple hearings, and careful case management.
Charlotte has a busy civil practice, with specialist areas which include property and landlord & tenant matters. KBG Chambers’ property team has members experienced in all areas ready to advise and assist on the impact of the Renters Rights Act 2025.

If you wish to discuss anything in this article or you want to instruct Charlotte or any member of the property team you can contact civil clerk on civilclerks@kbgchambers.co.uk.