Recovering possession without Section 21: Redevelopment under the Renters' Rights Act 2025

This article provides an update on the options available to landlords in recovering possession of a residential property following the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act.

Changes to the Renters' Rights Act

Section 21 notices or ‘no fault notices’ have been the main notice used by landlords to recover possession of their residential property for many years. This is often at the expense of other notices that could equally have been relied upon, given the situation at hand. Whether it was rent arrears, anti-social behaviour or even the landlord needing to recover possession for their own use, all of which are grounds that could entitle the landlord to possession in their own right. Despite this, section 21 notices were still often used instead. This is for several reasons. Whether it was viewed as the easier route to possession rather than opening themselves up to defences raised by the tenant, or just that the section 21 route is more effectively managed by the court so would result in possession quicker than a hearing being allocated and verbal submissions needing to be made. Ultimately, the reasons are no longer particularly relevant. Section 21 notices are no more which means that landlords will need to be more aware of their other options and how and when these can be used. 

As part of this series, we will explore the less common routes to possession either previously contained in schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 and enforced via the service of a section 8 notice, or grounds which have been added to it by the Renters’ Rights Act (“the Act”).

Ground 6: Recovering possession for redevelopment or substantial works

The first ground that we will look at is how a landlord may be entitled to possession if the property is going to be redeveloped or substantial works are required.

Landlords are able to recover possession of their property if they plan to demolish or substantially redevelop the property and these works cannot be done with the tenant in occupation. These rules existed previously but now there are some important alterations as to scope, compensation and the situation in which these grounds can be used.

Under the revised grounds under the Act in order to recover possession via this route, the landlord will need to have acquired their interest in the property before the start of the tenancy. This is to avoid a situation where developers would buy up currently occupied properties simply to serve notice immediately after their purchase.

There are additional requirements for landlords to rely on this ground:

• The landlord will need to show that the redevelopment plans are not speculative and will require evidence to prove their case. This could include, for instance, planning applications, contractor quotes, etc., and
• Much like with other grounds for possession which we will cover in future blogs, notice of the intention to rely on these grounds needs to be explained to the tenant before the tenancy. This should be included in the tenancy agreement.

Landlords using this ground would need to serve a minimum of 4 months' notice and notice cannot be served in the first 6 months of the tenancy. Also, in a departure from the previous rules, there is no longer a requirement to pay a statutory disturbance payment when using these grounds.

Will courts set a high bar? What landlords should expect

This sort of change makes sense given the extended nature of Assured Periodic Tenancies under the Act where tenants can remain in occupation without a fixed end date having been set. Development and progress are considered to be a necessary element of the housing market and so a residential tenancy structure that did not allow this, would be incongruous with this stance. Improvements with energy efficiency, design, safety etc, are all necessary steps in any effective system. These factors have always been widely considered within commercial tenancies protected under the 1954 Act (another type of tenancy that can simply continue even when the landlord may not want it to) and so it makes sense that the Act imposes/re-emphasises this in relation to residential tenancies.

As and when landlords are considering using this route, it is worth remembering that the burden to prove that these grounds exist lies with the landlord. Whilst these rules for obvious reasons have not been tested by the courts at the time of writing this article, we expect that the court will have a high threshold for landlords to meet and so possession should certainly not be viewed as a foregone conclusion. The works will need to be viable, imminent and crucially, not possible with the tenant in occupation. If there is a chance that the tenant could remain in occupation, and the tenant is willing to remain, it is entirely possible that the grounds for possession would fail.

How Boyes Turner's property disputes team can help

There is clearly plenty to unpack with the new Act. Developers buying an interest in a block which is already occupied may need to consider vacant possession as a prerequisite of the transfer rather than relying on obtaining possession once the purchase has taken place. Equally, planning before a tenant takes up occupation will be more crucial than ever.

This is all work and advice that can be provided by our property disputes and development teams at Boyes Turner. If any guidance is required, we would be happy to help. You can contact our dispute resolution team or development team.