Cassell v Sidhu: Gas Safety and Section 21 Ruling

In Cassell & Cassell v Sidhu & Sidhu (County Court at Reading, HHJ Clarke, 9 October 2025), a County Court appeal, considers whether a landlord's failure to supply a fully compliant pre-occupation gas safety record (GSR) permanently bars use of a section 21 notice, or whether later compliant records can "lift" the section 21 bar. Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke dismissed the tenants' appeal, holding that where two subsequent compliant GSRs have been provided before service of the notice, the earlier defect does not prevent reliance on section 21.

Background

• Tenancy: Assured shorthold tenancy of a property in Reading, fixed term from 7 May 2021, then statutory periodic from 7 May 2022.
• Gas safety history:
  • 14 January 2021: first GSR ("1st GSR") created. The "Details of Customer/Landlord" box was left blank; the "Details of site" named the property and gave a contact number. The first GSR was given to the tenants on signing.
  • 21 February 2022 and 27 February 2023: further gas checks and GSRs ("2nd" and "3rd" GSRs), both provided to the tenants; no issue was taken with their validity.
• Possession: Section 21 notice posted 16 June 2024, deemed served 18 June 2024, seeking possession by 23 August 2024.

At first instance, DDJ Hunter accepted that the 1st GSR breached regulation 36(3)(c)(iii) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 because it did not contain the landlord's address, but held the breach had been cured by later compliant GSRs and made a possession order.

The tenants appealed, arguing the pre-occupation breach under regulation 36(6)(b) (read with 36(3)(c)) was fatal and could not be remedied; they relied on Byrne v Harwood-Delgado (HHJ Bloom), while the landlords relied on the Court of Appeal's approach in Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield and the wording of the AST Prescribed Requirements Regulations 2015.

Issues on the appeal

1. Must a GSR relied on for regulation 36(6) compliance include all information listed in regulation 36(3)(c), including the landlord's name and address?
2. If the pre-occupation GSR was non-compliant, does that permanently bar section 21 (as in Byrne), or can later compliant records remedy the position by the time the notice is served (as suggested in Trecarrell)?

HHJ Clarke also recorded that, while judgment was reserved, the tenants vacated; she nonetheless handed down judgment as it affected costs.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The judge held that although the 1st GSR was not compliant with regulation 36(3)(c), the landlords were not "in breach of a prescribed requirement" at the time of the section 21 notice because they had provided later compliant GSRs within the statutory framework.

Key reasoning

1. What must a "record" contain?

   Both regulation 36(6)(a) (existing tenants) and 36(6)(b) (new tenants) require a "record" as defined by 36(3)(c). A GSR without all 36(3)(c) particulars (including the landlord's name and address) cannot evidence compliance with 36(6). The 1st GSR was therefore defective.

2. Remediability and the role of later records

   Trecarrell indicates that the section 21 bar under section 21A ends "once the GSR is provided," and that the prescribed requirement under the 2015 Regulations is limited to giving a copy of the relevant record to the tenant, without the 28-day time limit being a prescribed requirement. Applying a purposive approach, later provision of compliant records can lift the bar. Here the 2nd and 3rd GSRs were compliant and had been served.

3. How many records are relevant when serving section 21?

   The judge emphasised Parliament's scheme on retention and inspection: landlords must retain a GSR "until there have been two further checks." It would be inconsistent to require evidence of older records that Parliament says need not be retained or made available once two further checks have occurred. Consequently, when a tenancy has run long enough for two or more checks after occupation, the prescribed requirement to evidence at the section 21 stage concerns the last two GSRs (both compliant with 36(3)(c)) given to the tenant or displayed, i.e., regulation 36(6)(a) only.

4. Scenarios (illustrative) set out by the judge
   • Section 21 served within the first year of a new tenancy: landlord must evidence a compliant pre-occupation GSR under 36(6)(b) (whether served on time or late) and, if 12 months have passed, also a compliant post-occupation GSR under 36(6)(a).
   • Section 21 served after two or more checks during occupation: for a longer tenancy, the landlord must evidence compliance under 36(6)(a) only by providing the two most recent compliant GSRs; there is no obligation to evidence earlier records, including the pre-occupation one.

5. Distinguishing Byrne v Harwood-Delgado

   Byrne involved a potential total failure to obtain any pre-occupation GSR; HHJ Bloom considered that fatal to section 21. HHJ Clarke distinguished that scenario and, respectfully, declined to follow Byrne insofar as it conflicted with her analysis that, once two or more checks have been completed post-occupation, the prescribed requirement at the section 21 stage focuses on the last two records under 36(6)(a).

6. Why a purposive reading?

   Section 21A's bar is a collateral spur to compliance, not the primary sanction (criminal penalties exist for regulatory breaches). It would make little sense to impose a perpetual bar because of a historic omission in a pre-occupation record after later compliant checks have been carried out and provided, particularly where Parliament limited retention to the period covering two subsequent checks.

Practical points for landlords and agents

• Ensure each GSR is complete. A GSR relied upon to evidence compliance must contain all particulars in regulation 36(3)(c), including the landlord's name and address (or agent where appropriate). An incomplete record cannot be used to show compliance.
• Joint landlords. The judge accepted at first instance (and not disturbed on appeal) that naming one joint landlord (or an agent) can suffice; failing to list both names was treated as a triviality, but omission of the landlord's address was not.
• Defects can, in principle, be remedied. Late service can end the section 21A breach once a compliant record is actually given. But the record relied on must itself be compliant with 36(3)(c).
• Total absence of a pre-occupation check may still be fatal. The judge noted Byrne's view that where no pre-occupation check was carried out at all, section 21 may be unavailable; that situation was different to the present case and was not decided here.

Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The possession order stood, and the tenants were ordered to pay the landlords' costs, to be assessed if not agreed.

What this judgment is (and isn't)

This is a County Court appeal judgment. It is not binding like a Court of Appeal or Supreme Court authority, and it sits alongside other persuasive County Court decisions that take a different view. However, it offers a carefully reasoned, purposive construction aligned with Trecarrell's approach: where a tenancy has continued long enough for two post-occupation checks, the focus at the section 21 stage is on demonstrating that the last two compliant GSRs were given/displayed, rather than on historical documents that Parliament does not require landlords to retain beyond two further checks.