The Housing Act 1996, which received the Royal Assent on 24 July 1996, made major changes to most areas of housing law.

The only sections which are not yet in force are s 73 (duty to keep houses in multiple occupation fit for number of occupants) and ss 155(2(b)-(7), 156 and sched 15 (remands following arrest for alleged anti-social behaviour.Assured shortholdsAlthough the requirement for a Housing Act 1988 s 20 notice prior to the grant of an assured shorthold tenancy was abolished for tenancies granted from 28 February 1997, landlords still need to serve a s 21 notice in writing giving two clear months notice of intention to bring possession proceedings.

There is no power to dispense with such notices.

One unresolved issue is whether such a notice always has to state a date which is 'the last day of a period of the tenancy'; (see Housing Act 1988 s 21(4)(a)) or whether it can expire on any date.

In Ujima HA v Richardson [1995] CLW 46/95, HHJ Graham, sitting at Shoreditch County Court held that a landlord may either serve a notice which complies with s 21(1)(b) (which simply refers to 'not less than two months notice') or one which complies with s 21(4).

But in Lomas v Atkinson September 1993 Legal Action 16, Assistant Recorder Hamilton sitting at Shrewsbury County Court dismissed a claim for a possession order (inter alia) because the s 21 notice failed to expire on 'the last day of a period of the tenancy' as required by s 21(4).Forfeiture proceedingsSection 81 of the 1996 Act provides that landlords may not exercise a right to forfeiture of premises let as a dwelling for failure to pay service charges unless the amount claimed has either been agreed or admitted by the tenant or there has been a determination by a court or an arbitral tribunal.

The repeal of the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) 1985 s 19(4) by the Housing Act 1996 sched 19 part III means that county courts no longer have jurisdiction to grant a declaration as to the reasonableness of service charges in free standing proceedings where no other relief is claimed.

Any such application must be made to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT).

Although county courts may transfer any proceedings relating to service charges to LVTs under LTA s 31C (see HA 1996 s 83) if the proceedings were issued on or after 1 September 1997, there is no jurisdiction to transfer if a county court action was begun before that date (see HA 1996 (Commencement No 11) Order 1997 SI No 1851 para 2).ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOURThe Housing Act 1996 part V makes it easier for landlords to obtain possession orders based on anti-social behaviour.

Sections 144 and 148 by enacting new grounds 2 (against secure tenants) and 14 (against assured tenants) extend the grounds for possession.

Section 147 provides that in proceedings against secure tenants, courts may dispense with the need for a Housing Act 1985 s 83 notice if it is 'just and equitable' or that where there are allegations of anti-social behaviour, proceedings may be begun immediately after service of a s 83 notice.

There are similar provisions for landlords of assured tenants (the Housing Act 1996 s 150 and Housing Act 1988 s 8(1)(b).

However it has been held that although there is nothing in the rules preventing a landlord from applying ex parte to dispense with service of a s 8 notice, such applications should generally be made on notice since it is not possible for a judge to weigh up all the factors from both points of view without the tenant being in court.HOMELESSNESS APPEALSAlthough the Housing Act 1996 ss 202 to 204 create new rights to review adverse decisions by local authorities on applications by homeless people and to appeal to county courts, there are strict time limits which cannot be extended by the court -- 21 days to request a review and 21 days to bring a county court appeal.The general view is that county courts have power to grant interim injunctions requiring the provision of accommodation pending an appeal hearing (see County Courts Act 1984 s 38 and the cases referred to in September 1997 Legal Action 18 and December 1997 Legal Action 16) but there has been some discussion as to the test to be applied.

See R v Cardiff City Council ex p Barry [1990] 22 HLR 261, CA where at p 262 Sir John May stated that where 'a court concludes that a local authority's decision .

.

.

is or may be susceptible to challenge by way of judicial review, the court .

.

.

should .

.

.

enable the applicant to stay in accommodation which he or she may be in .

.

.' and Chelsea RLBC ex p Hammell [1989] 1 QB 518, where the Court of Appeal held that although the High Court always has power to issue interim injunctions, applicants for such orders have to show a strong prima facie case.Appeals to the Court of Appeal concerning interlocutory relief are pending in two s 204 cases (Halonen v City of Westminster (September 1997 Legal Action 19) and Gore v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC, HHJ Wakefield, West London County Court, 20 November 1997).