Fraudulent tenants can cause serious financial and legal problems. Landlord and Tenant Consultant Solicitor Zoe Turner of Woodstock Legal Services explains how rental scams work, warning signs to watch for, and how thorough tenant referencing can protect your property.

With the Renters’ Rights Bill (RRB) having entered its report stage in the House of Lords on Thursday, 4 July 2025, landlords across England are watching closely to see what shape the final legislation might take. In this insight, experienced landlord and tenant solicitor Ryan Heaven addresses a growing concern in the sector: will the same restrictions that currently apply to Section 21 notices also apply to Section 8 ? This article separates fact from fiction and offers landlords across the UK clear, practical guidance on what’s actually in the pipeline for Section 8 notices , and how to stay compliant. What’s Happening with the Renters’ Rights Bill? The Renters’ Rights Bill 2025 has remained a central focus for private landlords and letting professionals across the country. With the government proposing a wide-ranging reform of the private rental sector, one of the headline changes is the long-anticipated abolition of Section 21 notices , commonly referred to as “no-fault evictions.” Royal Assent for RRB is expected in September; therefore, we will know the final version of the law at this stage. But as with any major legislative reform, uncertainty can breed misinformation, and the slower the progress, the louder the rumours become. Section 8 Restrictions: What Are Landlords Hearing? One persistent rumour has been making the rounds among landlords and letting agents: The same restrictions currently applied to Section 21 notices , such as requirements for valid Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) , Gas Safety Certificates , and the How to Rent guide , will also be applied to Section 8 notices as part of the Renters’ Rights Bill. Let’s be clear: this rumour is false. What’s the Legal Difference Between Section 21 and Section 8 Notices? For those new to the distinction between the two possession routes: Section 21 notices allow landlords to regain possession of a property without giving a reason, which is why they’re referred to as “no-fault” evictions. Section 8 notices require the landlord to rely on one of the grounds for possession listed in the Housing Act 1988 . These include reasons such as rent arrears , anti-social behaviour , or other breaches of tenancy. At present, Section 21 notices are highly regulated. If landlords do not provide required documents, such as a valid EPC, Gas Safety Certificate, or How to Rent guide, the notice becomes invalid. Section 8 notices, on the other hand, are not currently bound by these documentation requirements. And according to government updates, that is not about to change. What’s the Official Government Position on Section 8 Notices? While the Bill continues to evolve, there are some concrete steps landlords can take today to stay ahead of the curve: Review your deposit processes to ensure you’re fully compliant with protection schemes and prescribed information delivery Understand the grounds for possession under Section 8 ; these will soon be your primary tool Monitor updates around the expected standardised notice form due later this year Seek early legal advice when considering eviction, especially where compliance issues may arise Being proactive now will save time, money and stress later. The earlier you resolve any grey areas, the stronger your legal position will be when the RRB becomes law. Specialist Advice from Woodstock Legal Services Whether you’re getting to grips with the Renters’ Rights Bill, managing a complex tenancy, or ensuring your notices are fully compliant, our award-winning Landlord & Tenant Team is here to help.

In his latest insight, Employment Law Consultant Richard Hiron explores how UK employers and HR professionals can handle personal relationships between staff in the workplace sensitively and lawfully. While there’s no specific legislation banning such relationships, failing to manage them appropriately could expose you

Following Ozzy Osbourne’s passing, Woodstock Legal Services explores the legal steps behind the scenes—royalties, estates, and what this means for others.

Having a working relationship with an outsourced HR provider can make day-to-day people management easier for many businesses. But what happens when that relationship goes a step too far? In his latest insight, Employment Law Consultant Richard Hiron explores when outsourced HR professionals may legally become agents of their clients, and why this matters. Why Outsourced HR Services Appeal to UK Businesses Outsourced HR services offer a range of benefits that have made them increasingly attractive to UK employers. These include: Cost-effectiveness compared to employing a full-time HR team Greater freedom in advising clients than being an in-house HR adviser A sense of legal separation, making HR advisers appear at arm’s length from internal decisions However, recent case law from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) suggests that outsourced HR professionals may not always be as independent as they assume, and that they need to be very careful not just about the contractual terms of their arrangements with their clients, but also the practical application of the relationship. Handa v The Station Hotel: What Happened? The case of Handa v The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Limited and others [2025] EAT 62 raised important questions about the legal standing of outsourced HR professionals. We won’t linger on the details, because you didn’t come here for a lecture in employment law, but in essence: An employed director reported potential financial misconduct, which could have been classified as whistleblowing (also known as “protected disclosures”). Complaints from other staff members about bullying and harassment were then made against that director. One outsourced HR consultant was instructed to investigate those complaints and recommended that disciplinary action against the director be considered. A second outsourced HR professional conducted the disciplinary hearing and advised that the employer would be “justified” in dismissing the director for gross misconduct - advice issued in collaboration with the employer’s solicitors. Ultimately, the employer dismissed the director, based on the outsourced HR professional’s recommendation. What Is an Agency Relationship in Employment Law? It is not enough to simply provide a service or act helpfully to become someone’s agent in the eyes of the law. Legally, an agent is someone who has been authorised to act on behalf of another person or organisation, often with the ability to make decisions that directly affect that person’s legal or financial position. Typically, an agent is someone trusted to act in another’s best interests, which is why many agents are also fiduciaries. Trustees, company directors, financial advisers, business partners, and solicitors are common examples of these. What they have in common is the authority to affect relationships between the person or organisation they represent and third parties. Crucially, there must usually be more than just a contract for services for a person to be considered an agent. An agency relationship arises when a person has decision-making authority and is actively representing the interests of someone else with their approval. Without that, no matter how beneficial or reliable the service provided, an agency relationship is unlikely to be found. What Would Make an Outsourced HR Professional an Agent? In the Handa case, neither of the two outsourced HR professionals was found to be an agent in the decision to dismiss the employed director. But that doesn't mean an agency relationship couldn’t have existed elsewhere. Here’s where the legal line gets blurry: 1. Performing Core Employer Functions If an outsourced HR consultant performs functions that are typically reserved for the employer, such as conducting grievance processes or disciplinary hearings, they may be considered the employer’s agent. This is especially the case where employees or third parties deal directly with the HR provider, and the employer has little or no involvement. 2. Going Beyond Contractual Services Even where a written contract exists, carrying out roles that go beyond pure service delivery can give rise to an agency relationship. Whilst a fiduciary relationship is a key hallmark of agency, it is not the only factor in determining whether an outsourced HR professional will be considered an agent. This may include making final decisions on matters such as pay, dismissal, or internal procedures. 3. Exercising Authority Without Oversight Where the HR provider is granted authority to act independently, for example, to run a disciplinary process from start to finish without significant input from the employer, they may be legally classified as an agent. 4. Evidence of Collusion or Shared Control The closer the working relationship between the employer and the HR consultant, the more likely it is that the agency will be inferred. In the Handa case: The first HR professional merely recommended a disciplinary process. The second HR professional reviewed the evidence and concluded dismissal was justified, but did not carry it out herself. If either had gone a step further and directly made the dismissal or made other decisions on behalf of the employer, they would likely have crossed the line into agency. 5. Perception Alone Is Not Enough An employee’s perception that an HR professional is acting on behalf of the employer is not enough by itself to create a legal agency, but might be important if combined with other factors. However, in Handa, the director’s claims of being victimised after whistleblowing did not automatically make the HR professionals agents of the employer. How Outsourced HR Professionals Can Avoid Legal Risk So, what can HR consultants do to protect themselves? Be Clear in Your Contracts The contract with your client should clearly state the limits of your role. Avoid any language that implies you can make final decisions on behalf of the employer, especially regarding disciplinary action, grievance outcomes, or dismissals. Simply saying that you are not your client’s agent is unlikely to be enough, especially if your actions do not match what your contract with your client says. Stay Within Advisory Boundaries Advise, recommend, support, but don’t decide. Let your clients make the final call, even if you believe a certain outcome is justified. This is where the line between adviser and agent is often drawn. Avoid Acting Like an Employee Don’t allow staff to contact you directly for day-to-day HR matters unless this is carefully managed through a defined service agreement. Even then, remember that providing services like payroll, internal HR policies, grievances, or disciplinaries puts you in sensitive territory. Seek Legal Advice When in Doubt If you find yourself being asked to take actions that go beyond your usual service scope, pause and take legal advice. It may save you significant time, stress and potential liability later. Why This Case Matters for Employment Law Professionals The Handa decision serves as an important reminder that legal responsibility doesn't always rest neatly with the employer. If you’re working with HR consultants or are one yourself, understanding where legal boundaries lie is critical. This is especially important for: Solicitors working with SMEs who rely on outsourced HR providers HR professionals offering freelance or agency services Employers who want to reduce legal risk when outsourcing HR functions  Specialist Advice from Woodstock Legal Services Worried about becoming responsible for your client’s employment decisions? At Woodstock Legal Services, we specialise in employment law advice tailored to HR professionals and consultants. Richard Hiron, our experienced Employment Law Consultant, has worked directly in the HR sector and regularly advises outsourced HR professionals across the UK. Whether you need advice on contracts, investigations, disciplinaries or complex whistleblowing concerns, Richard is here to support you.

Selling a house? Discover how to speed up the conveyancing process with expert tips from a UK property lawyer. Avoid delays, stay on track, and complete with confidence.

In her latest insight, Housing Landlord and Tenant Specialist Zoe Turner shares the story of what should have been a simple, lawful rent increase that turned into a two-year legal battle, draining public funds, testing the limits of housing law, and ultimately driving a good landlord out of the private rental sector entirely. This is a real case she dealt with in England, illustrating how far the current system has strayed from balance and common sense. The Landlord’s Attempt at Fairness Zoe’s client, a long-standing private landlord in England, hadn’t increased rent for several years. With costs rising and market rents shifting, she issued a reasonable and entirely lawful rent increase notice. This wasn’t an aggressive change; it was a small step to reflect current market conditions. Instead of engaging in discussion or negotiating, the tenant refused to pay the new rate, fell into arrears, and consequently was served a Section 8 notice under the Housing Act 1988 , initiating the legal process for repossession. What should have been a simple and reasonable step soon turned into a complex, emotionally draining legal battle and one that would test the limits of the current system. A Misused Disrepair Defence The tenant responded by raising a defence under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 , alleging that the property was unfit due to mice, dampness and mould. However, this was the first time these issues had ever been mentioned. The tenant had not submitted complaints or requested maintenance before this point. On the contrary, the landlord’s multiple attempts to investigate were obstructed. Entry was denied to pest control professionals on several occasions. Eventually, when access was permitted, assessments found that the problems were caused by the tenant’s lifestyle, such as drying clothes indoors without ventilation, poor hygiene, food waste left around the flat, and blocked extractor fans. Environmental Health and the Improvement Notice Despite the landlord's ongoing efforts to resolve concerns, the tenant contacted Environmental Health. They issued an Environmental Health Improvement Notice , citing a damp corner in the basement and a mouse issue. Again, both the root of these issues are attributed to the tenant’s behaviour. Environmental Health did not investigate the origin of the problems or the tenant’s contribution to them. Nor did they consider the repeated obstruction of the landlord’s attempts to gain access for expert evaluation. This had serious consequences. Even though the eviction proceedings were brought under Section 8 rather than Section 21 , the Improvement Notice could still be used to support the tenant’s disrepair claim. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 , rent is not lawfully due during any period the property is considered unfit. In this case, the tenant sought to have all rent arrears dismissed, despite never having previously reported the issues and having contributed substantially to the very conditions they cited. This misuse of the disrepair defence threatens the integrity of Ground 8 proceedings . Even where there is clear evidence of obstruction and tenant-caused issues, such claims can delay justice, drain public resources through legal aid and impose an unsustainable burden on responsible landlords striving to uphold their obligations. Legal Aid Misuse and Deliberate Delay Tactics The tenant’s legal team made additional allegations, such as the deposit not being protected and prescribed information not being served, seeking compensation of up to six times the original amount, despite clear evidence that all legal steps had been followed. These claims added further delay and complexity. What made this case especially galling was the tenant’s access to Legal Aid, which funded the tenant’s defence even though the case lacked merit. Public funds were used to support repeated, baseless applications and counterclaims, many of which were filed purely to prolong proceedings. This isn’t an isolated example. Many landlords now find themselves up against legally aided opponents, despite facing fabricated or exaggerated claims. It’s a pattern that’s growing and one that requires urgent reform. The Broken Court System The entire court process took nearly two years. Why? Because of meritless counterclaims, a sluggish court system, and systemic flaws in how possession proceedings are handled. Cases like this often take more than six months just to be listed. Eventually, her client won. She proved that she had met her legal obligations and had acted in good faith. But the victory came at a steep price. Emotionally exhausted and financially drained, the Landlord made the difficult decision to sell the property. Another responsible landlord lost to the system, not because she broke the law, but because the law no longer works for her. What This Case Tells Us About the State of Housing Law This wasn’t just about rent arrears. This was a battle over fairness, accountability and access to justice. Several key issues emerged: 1. Disrepair Defence Can Be Abused: The disrepair defence, which is intended to protect tenants from negligent landlords, is now being weaponised. In cases like this, where the tenant contributes to the problem, the law still leans in their favour. 2. Legal Aid Needs Proper Gatekeeping: We strongly support Legal Aid when used correctly. But the lack of oversight means many cases with no prospect of success are still fully funded, wasting valuable public resources. 3. The Courts Can’t Cope with Current Demand The civil courts are already struggling. And yet, the Renters Rights Bill proposes to remove Section 21 entirely, and introduce greater tenant protections, whilst adding regulatory complexity. These reforms might be justifiable if the judicial system were equipped to handle them, but it isn’t. Why This Matters to You If you’re a landlord , this case is a warning. Even when you follow the law, you can face prolonged legal challenges, reputational damage, and huge financial strain. If you’re a tenant , it’s a reminder that housing rights exist for a reason, but they should be used responsibly. Exploiting the law undermines its integrity and ultimately harms the wider rental market. If you're a policymaker , it’s time to listen. This isn’t about choosing sides, but it’s about designing a system that works. Specialist Advice for Landlords and Tenants from Woodstock Legal Services Whether you’re facing a Section 8 notice , a disrepair defence , or trying to understand your obligations under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 , we’re here to help. Our experienced team can guide you through: Possession proceedings under the Housing Act 1988 Responding to an Environmental Health Improvement Notice Defending or pursuing disrepair claims Navigating proposed reforms under the Renters Rights Bill

In his latest insight, Richard Hiron discusses how to effectively manage Workplace Exit Strategies. Whether you're dealing with an underperforming team member or facing a dispute, understanding when to use a protected conversation versus a without-prejudice discussion can save your business time, money, and potential legal issues. This guide aims to help UK employers and managers better understand the Employee Exit Process with confidence and care. Why Getting Exit Negotiations Right Matters There is a famous quote often attributed to author C.S. Lewis, brought together from themes in his work. It goes like this: “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending”. It’s an interesting idea, but in the realm of employment law and employment processes, it can take time and money to achieve, and much more so than simply ensuring that the beginning is correct from the get-go. At Woodstock Legal Services, we regularly support businesses that have attempted to hold an exit conversation without fully understanding the legal framework. When misused, these conversations can lose legal protection and later become part of the evidence reviewed by an employment tribunal. This is why it is important to understand whether a protected conversation or a without-prejudice conversation is appropriate, and when you can minimise risk and manage employee departures legally, respectfully, and efficiently. What Is a Protected Conversation – And When Can You Use One? A protected conversation, under Section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 , allows employers to have off-the-record discussions with an employee about ending their employment, but it only applies in specific circumstances. Protected Conversations Only Shield Against Unfair Dismissal Claims At the time of writing, employees in the UK need two full years of continuous service to claim unfair dismissal. This may change in 2026 when the government proposes to make unfair dismissal a day-one right under the proposed Employment Rights Bill . A protected conversation can only be used when an unfair dismissal is the only potential claim. If the employee could suggest that there was discrimination, whistleblowing, unlawful deduction of wages, breach of contract, or automatically unfair dismissal, then the conversation would not be protected and could be disclosed in court or a tribunal. Use Protected Conversations Carefully Some situations where a protected conversation may be appropriate include: • Performance management processes • Redundancy discussions • Conduct or capability issues • Certain “some other substantial reason” dismissals However, the strength of a protected conversation should never be assumed. Employers are often surprised to learn that protection fails if any part of the conversation falls outside of the strict scope. This is why you should always seek professional legal advice before relying on this route. When to Use a Without Prejudice Conversation Instead If a dispute has already arisen, or if one seems likely, you may need to hold a without prejudice conversation instead. This type of conversation allows parties to explore settlement without fear that the discussion will be used as evidence in legal proceedings. What Counts as a Dispute? This can be a grey area. A grievance or disciplinary action on its own might not count. However, if the issue is serious enough that either party is contemplating legal action, then it may constitute a dispute. For example: • A disciplinary process that could end an employee’s career • Ongoing issues that might lead to a claim of constructive dismissal • Raised grievances involving potential discrimination or harassment When a genuine dispute exists, a without prejudice discussion can give employers broader legal protection across multiple potential claims, not just unfair dismissal. Why You Should Never Mix Up the Two It’s tempting to try and combine both protections, but this is a legal trap. Phrases like “This is a without prejudice, protected conversation under Section 111A,” create more confusion than clarity. Using both labels simultaneously doesn’t double your protection; it could cancel both out, leaving you fully exposed in a tribunal. Instead, conduct a careful analysis of your situation to determine which option applies. If you’re unsure, please feel free to give Woodstock Legal Services a call or email . Avoiding the Cost of Getting It Wrong A poorly handled employee exit process can come back to haunt you. Not only could you face legal claims, but even a signed settlement agreement can be challenged if it's later revealed that the conversation wasn't protected. In some cases, mismanagement can lead to reputational damage, especially if tribunal decisions, often published online, name your business. Taking a few extra steps at the beginning can ensure you have the correct approach to Workplace Exit Negotiations, helping to protect your brand, finances, and peace of mind. Final Thoughts – Take Control of the Ending Ending the employment relationship doesn't have to be messy. With the right structure, support, and language, exit negotiations can be managed respectfully and effectively for everyone involved. Whether you're considering a settlement agreement, planning to hold a protected conversation, or investigating a workplace dispute, remember that the best results come from getting it right from the start. Specialist Advice for Employers from Woodstock Legal Services Workplace exit strategies are often emotionally charged, but with the right legal support, they don’t have to be risky. Woodstock’s consultant, Richard Hiron, has a lot of experience helping UK employers manage exits the right way. Whether you need help preparing for a protected conversation, evaluating the risks of a without prejudice discussion, or drafting a settlement agreement, Woodstock is here to support you.