Section 8: Ground 6B - Compliance with enforcement action

Ground 6B is one of the newer and more controversial grounds for possession introduced into the Housing Act 1988 by the Renters’ Rights Act.

This ground might seem pretty straightforward at first glance. If a landlord has fallen foul of an enforcement action and continuing the let would put them in breach of the law, Ground 6B gives them a route to repossession to avoid any further unlawfulness.

But there is considerably more to it than that.

Ground 6B sits in a very interesting (and awkward) position between landlord responsibility, tenant protection, and the practical realities of local authority enforcement. While it was designed to solve a legitimate problem, the way it's drafted raises questions about compensation, enforcement, and what happens when the landlord is partly responsible in the first place.

With all that in mind, let's take a closer look.

• What is Ground 6B
• Why is it controversial?
• What about local authorities?
• Ground 6B is about necessity, not convenience
• Final thoughts - A ground that will take time to settle

What is Ground 6B?

“The court can order you to get your property back if you have been investigated for breaking the law. Under this ground, the court can also tell you to pay compensation to your tenant.” - Grounds for possession: guidance for landlords and letting agents, Gov.uk

Ground 6B is essentially a compliance ground that applies when a particular enforcement action has been taken, and the landlord cannot continue to let the property without breaching it.

The situations covered by 6B are quite specific. They include a banning order, certain improvement notices, a prohibition order, the refusal or revocation of an HMO or selective licence, a property being occupied by more people than the licence permits, and certain planning enforcement notices or injunctions.

The important point is that these are not simply cases where a landlord has decided that they would rather have the property empty.

Something has happened which means that continuing the tenancy creates a legal problem that the landlord cannot get out of any other way.

For example, imagine a landlord whose HMO licence has been revoked. They cannot simply carry on letting the property as though nothing has happened. Or imagine a prohibition order that means the property, or part of it, cannot lawfully remain occupied.

Before Ground 6B, there was a potential gap in the system, as even a Section 21 notice was not valid if an HMO licence was revoked.

A landlord could find themselves in a position where the law effectively said, “You cannot continue to let this property”, but equally there was no possession ground allowing them to bring the tenancy to an end.

That is one reason Ground 6B exists.

It is not quite a “bad landlord” ground

This is where I think the wording can be slightly misleading.

It would be very easy to read Ground 6B as a ground which says: “The landlord has broken the law, so the landlord gets the property back.” But that isn't really what is happening.

In some cases, of course, the landlord may have behaved badly. But Ground 6B is not limited to situations where the landlord has deliberately committed an offence. The question is whether something has happened which means that continuing to let the property would put the landlord in breach of the relevant enforcement action.

Take an improvement notice. A landlord may genuinely believe their property is acceptable, only for the local authority to decide that remedial work is required. Or consider a licensing situation. A landlord may have applied for a licence on the basis that the property could accommodate five people, only for the authority to grant a licence for four.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the landlord set out to break the law, although doubtless there is an argument they have been careless. But if the landlord cannot legally continue to accommodate the existing occupants, they need a mechanism to resolve the situation.

Why is it controversial?

The controversy comes from the other side of the argument.

Tenant groups can reasonably ask: “Hang on, if a landlord has behaved badly enough to end up with an enforcement notice, licence revocation or prohibition order, aren't we now giving them a mechanism to get rid of their tenant?”

You could imagine a particularly unscrupulous landlord looking at Ground 6B and thinking: “Well, if I deliberately let the property deteriorate, perhaps I can get an enforcement notice and then use that as a route to possession.”

That isn't what the legislation is intended to encourage. But it is one reason why the ground needs to be treated with some care.

The legislation allows the court to award compensation to the tenant when it orders possession under Ground 6B. That is clearly intended to protect against the ground becoming a cost-free way to remove tenants following enforcement action. But there is a catch.

The legislation does not set out a simple fixed compensation figure. Instead, the court can award whatever sum appears sufficient to compensate the tenant for damage or loss resulting from the possession order. The court must also consider the circumstances that made Ground 6B available, including any tenant conduct that caused or contributed to the situation.

So the courts have considerable scope to develop the meaning of this provision over time.

How much compensation?

This is one of the areas where I think we are going to have to wait for some case law.

There isn't a simple tariff saying that a Ground 6B possession order automatically means £5,000, £10,000 or some other fixed sum for the tenant.

The legislation talks about compensation for “damage or loss” resulting from the possession order. That immediately raises some interesting questions:

• Are we talking primarily about straightforward financial losses, such as removal costs and other moving-related expenses?
• Could there be arguments about wider forms of loss and inconvenience?
• What happens if the tenant has contributed to the circumstances which made Ground 6B necessary?

The legislation expressly tells the court to take that into account.

For example, if a prohibition order makes continued occupation unlawful but the tenant refuses to leave, and the landlord ultimately has to use Ground 6B to obtain possession, the tenant's conduct could be relevant to the compensation question.

But precisely how the courts will approach these issues is something we will learn through cases.

I suspect a series of decisions will eventually establish clearer principles.

The practical problem with compensation

I foresee another issue here that might be overlooked: the compensation is tied to the possession order.

So, if the tenant simply leaves without the matter reaching court, there may be no Ground 6B possession order and therefore no court-ordered compensation. That matters because many tenants will leave rather than fight a possession claim in court.

Even where compensation is awarded, a second practical question remains: will the landlord actually pay it?

Enforcing a judgment can be a hassle. A tenant already having to find somewhere else to live may not have the time, money, or legal knowledge to pursue enforcement against a landlord.

So while the compensation provision sounds like an important safeguard, we shouldn't assume every tenant entitled to compensation will receive it.

This is one of those areas where the effectiveness of legislation depends on the wider system working properly. The courts have to be accessible. People have to understand their rights. And, ultimately, judgments have to be enforceable.

What about local authorities?

Ground 6B also raises a wider question about what happens to the property after enforcement action has been taken.

In some circumstances, local authorities can obtain management orders and take control of properties, but these powers are relatively limited, and councils do not routinely use them.

One reason is practical.

If a local authority takes over a property in poor condition, someone has to pay to put it right.

The authority may eventually recover that money through the property or its rental income, but it still needs to find the cash up front.

If you ask a council to spend £50,000 today on a property and tell it it can recover that money over the next few years, the problem is that the council still needs the £50,000 today.

It also means that Ground 6B is part of a much wider conversation about what happens to substandard housing when enforcement action is taken.

Removing a tenant may solve the immediate legal problem, but it doesn't necessarily solve the underlying housing problem. The property still exists. The work still needs doing. And somebody still needs to pay for it.

Ground 6B is about necessity, not convenience

For landlords and agents, the key lesson is that Ground 6B should not be seen as an easy route to possession simply because an enforcement notice has appeared.

The underlying circumstances matter.

If the property cannot lawfully continue to be let, there needs to be a mechanism to bring the tenancy to an end. That is the sensible rationale for Ground 6B.

But if a landlord has contributed to the situation through poor management or deliberate non-compliance, the ground doesn't make that behaviour disappear.

Indeed, the compensation provision means the circumstances that made Ground 6B available may come back into focus when the court considers what, if anything, should be paid to the tenant.

That creates an interesting balance.

The law needs to give landlords a way out when enforcement action makes continued occupation unlawful, but it also needs to ensure Ground 6B does not become a convenient escape route for landlords who created the problem themselves.

Final thoughts - A ground that will take time to settle

Ground 6B is therefore one of those grounds where I suspect the legislation will only tell us part of the story.

The basic principle is clear enough: if enforcement action means that a tenancy cannot lawfully continue, the landlord needs a route to possession.

But the interesting questions are all around the edges.

• How will courts approach compensation?
• How much weight will they give to the landlord's conduct?
• How much weight will they give to the tenant's conduct?
• What counts as “damage or loss”?

And, perhaps most importantly, how often will tenants actually pursue the compensation which the legislation potentially gives them?

There is a legitimate policy argument for having Ground 6B. Without it, landlords could find themselves trapped in a position where they are legally required to stop letting a property but have no effective way of ending the tenancy.

But there is also a legitimate concern that the ground could be perceived as rewarding poor behaviour if the safeguards are not effective.

That is why I think Ground 6B is such an interesting example of legislative drafting.

And, as is so often the case with housing law, the real test will not be what the legislation says on paper. It will be how it works in practice.