On 12 October, I wrote a post about student lets and ground 4A.
In that post, I suggested using holding deposits where landlords want to reserve the right to use ground 4A for possession.
This is the special student ground, which can only be used in specific circumstances.
For new student tenancies in England, one condition is that the period between entering into the tenancy and the date the tenant is entitled to possession must be six months or less. As the Act says where:
the period—
(i) beginning with the day on which the tenancy was entered into, and
(ii) ending with the day on which the tenant was entitled to possession of the dwelling-house,
is six months or less,
My view is that the safest approach is for neither party to sign the tenancy agreement before the six-month period. My recommended approach, taking a holding deposit and extending the deadline for agreement into the six-month window before possession, allows either party to withdraw before entering into the tenancy agreement.
My view is challenged
However, a commentor on the blog reported receiving advice from the NRLA advice line that
“a group of students can sign the tenancy agreement and send it to the landlord, who then signs and dates it within the six-month period before the tenancy is due to start “ is considered acceptable for preserving the landlord’s ability to use ground 4A.
I have to say that I am worried about this. So I decided to dig a little deeper.
The statutory guidance and comments in Hansard
Looking at the government’s explanatory notes published with the Act, I see it says at paragraph 972:
The ground being unavailable for tenancies agreed more than six months in advance will disincentivise tenancies being agreed very early in the academic year, which students can feel pressured into and can lead to them making rushed decisions about who they live with.
I then had a look at the discussions when this bill was debated in Parliament, where I see that Matthew Pennycook stated, as reported in Hansard column 204:
Hon. Members with large student populations in their constituencies will know that the dynamics of the general student rental market in many parts of the country see students compelled to make important decisions about accommodation long before they have formed stable friendship groups, or have had time to properly judge a property’s condition or location, and to consequently pay substantial deposits at a point in time when they are already coping with significant additional costs.
This arms race, in which students are pressured ever earlier in the year to enter into contracts for the subsequent academic year, clearly is not benefiting them, and it is arguable whether it benefits the student landlords engaged in it.
The Government have therefore tabled amendments 18 and 53, which will prevent the use of possession ground 4A in instances where a student tenancy was agreed more than six months in advance of the date of occupation, thereby helping to reduce the prevalence of the practice.
I want to be clear that the amendment will not lead to an outright ban on contracts being agreed more than six months in advance. Instead, making the use of ground 4A conditional on not doing so will act as a strong disincentive against landlords who wish to use it to pressure students into early sign-ups, as many do now.
These passages explain the policy behind the restriction. They do not expressly resolve whether a tenant can sign before the six-month period or, if they can, what needs to be done to satisfy the requirements of the six-month rule.
The problem
I have to say that I am not convinced that tenants signing before the 6 month period, with the landlord not signing until within the six-month period, will really satisfy the ground.
The commenter on my blog postulates that if the students’ signatures amount only to an offer awaiting acceptance, they will not necessarily be legally committed to taking the tenancy.
My concern though is whether the documents and communications actually achieve that result. Students may believe that signing commits them, and landlords or agents may behave as though the letting has already been agreed.
Even if a tenancy is marked ‘subject to contract’ (and the landlord’s signature postponed) I suspect that many tenants and even letting agents will not understand the meaning of this and again will consider themselves to be irrevocably bound by the tenancy. Which goes against the spirit and purpose of the six-month rule.
That does not, by itself, mean that a binding agreement has been created. But it reinforces my concern about the practical risks of this approach.
Do you want to risk it?
It is of course always possible that I am wrong and that a court would uphold an arrangement under which the tenants sign early but no binding tenancy agreement arises until the landlord accepts and signs within the six-month period.
I also appreciate that landlords would much prefer to continue their previous practice of signing tenants up many months in advance.
However, the alleged NRLA approach is by no means proved correct and the true situation will not be known until we have had litigation up to the High Court level or above. When it will be a binding precedent.
Until that happens, any landlord where the tenancy agreement has been signed in advance, and who then tries to evict under Ground 4A, risks a defence being filed by their tenants on the basis that they are debarred from using Ground 4A due to a breach of the six-month rule.
Even if the tenants’ defence fails, the landlord may well have been involved in complex, stressful and no doubt expensive litigation. Stress and expense I am sure the landlord would prefer not to incur.
My advice to landlords who want to minimise the risk of losing Ground 4A, is that neither party should sign the tenancy agreement before the six-month period. That is a precautionary recommendation. The statutory test is when the tenancy is entered into, rather than simply when either party signs. Taking a holding deposit, as discussed in my previous post, is a good alternative which should not put ground 4A at risk.
This advice is in line with my standard advice to landlords when seeking to rely on any aspect of the Renters Rights Act 2025 which is not crystal clear, which is ‘don’t risk it’.
Let someone else bear the costs of a legal challenge, and do not rely on the disputed point until it is no longer in dispute.
Leave a Reply