Since the Deregulation Act 2015 came into force, technical challenges to the validity of notices seeking possession under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) have been commonplace. One such requirement[1] is for landlords to provide copies of gas safety certificates.

Despite the Court of Appeal decision in Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield [2020] EWCA Civ 760, the details of what is required of landlords with respect to gas safety certificates continue to be debated in County Courts up and down the country. With the Renters’ Rights Bill on its way through Parliament with its second reading in the House of Commons on 9 October 2024, such debates may be on notice to vacate the Courts in the near future.

The recent decision of District Judge Jenkins in the unreported case of Barakzai and Barakzai v Fenech and Fenech (19 September 2024 in the County Court at Brentford) considered Regulation 36(3)(c)(viii) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (“the 1998 Regulations”), which requires that the gas safety record must include “the name and signature of the individual carrying out the check”. The Judge rejected arguments that the purpose of the regulation was merely to identify the gas engineer (relying on Lowe v Governors of Sutton’s Hospital in Charterhouse (2024) HLR 29 and Northwood (Solihull) Ltd v Fearn (2022) 1 WLR 1661) and held that while the printing of the engineer’s name could amount to a signature, it needed to be added to the completed record by way of authentication to satisfy the regulation.

Submissions were also made on requirements for gas safety certificates to be served within 12 months of the previous record, but the Judge concluded that Patten LJ’s judgment at paragraph 35 of Trecarrell was conclusive, not obiter, in finding that the failure to carry out the next safety check within 12 months as required by Regulation 36 paragraph (3)(a) of the 1998 Regulations did not preclude the landlord from compliance with Regulation 36 paragraph 6(a) of the 1998 Regulations (paragraphs 6 or 7 being the actual prescribed requirements under The Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015). Patten LJ commented that the alternative interpretation was “absurd”.

While County Court judgments are not authoritative, the case provides a useful illustration of the sort of technicalities that continue to be litigated in claims seeking possession under section 21 of the 1988 Act. It is unlikely that this is quite the last gasp for such technicalities, but their days may well be numbered – it remains to be seen what new arguments they will be succeeded by.

[1] section 21A of the 1988 Act, Regulation 2 of The Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015, and Regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998