HA 1988 s. 29

Landlord Harassment Offence: HA 1988 s. 29

HA 1988 s. 29 makes landlord harassment and withholding services an offence if likely to cause an occupier to leave. Reasonable grounds is a defence.

Official text HA 1988 s. 29 — United Kingdom

In section 1 of the 1977 Act (unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier), with respect to acts done after the commencement of this Act, subsection (3) shall have effect with the substitution, for the word “calculated”, of the word “likely”. After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections— Subject to subsection (3B) below, the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if— he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence, and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises. A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) above if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or withholding the services in question. In subsection (3A) above “ landlord ”, in relation to a residential occupier of any premises, means the person who, but for— the residential occupier’s right to remain in occupation of the premises, or a restriction on the person’s right to recover possession of the premises, would be entitled to occupation of the premises and any superior landlord under whom that person derives title.

Text in force at .

Source: legislation.gov.uk — The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk), reproduced under licence Open Government Licence v3.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 29 is a rewriting section: it does not itself create a free-standing offence but amends section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which is where the offence actually lives. It made two changes. First, in the existing offence it replaced "calculated" with "likely", so the prosecution no longer has to show that the conduct was aimed at driving the occupier out - it is enough that it was likely to have that effect.

Second, and more substantially, it inserted subsections (3A) to (3C). Those make the landlord of a residential occupier, or an agent of the landlord, guilty of an offence where they do acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the occupier or their household, or persistently withdraw or withhold services reasonably required for occupation, and know or have reasonable cause to believe that the conduct is likely to cause the occupier to give up occupation or to refrain from exercising a right or pursuing a remedy. The mental element is therefore knowledge or reasonable cause to believe, rather than intention - a significantly lower bar than the original offence.

Subsection (3B) gives the defence: a person is not guilty if they prove they had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withholding the services. Subsection (3C) defines "landlord" for this purpose as the person who, but for the occupier's right to remain or a restriction on recovering possession, would be entitled to occupation, and any superior landlord above them - so an agent and a superior landlord are both within reach.

When it applies

  • A landlord repeatedly turning up unannounced, letting himself in, or sending threatening messages.
  • Heating, hot water or electricity withheld while the tenant is still living there.
  • An agent pressuring an occupier to leave before the end of proceedings.
  • A tenant reporting harassment to the council's tenancy relations officer.
  • A landlord arguing there were reasonable grounds for cutting off a service.

What this section does not say

  • It is not where the offence is written. Section 29 amends section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and it is that section that is charged.
  • It is not a civil claim. Compensation for an occupier driven out is the section 27 route; this is the criminal side.
  • It does not require proof of intention. Knowledge, or reasonable cause to believe the conduct is likely to have the stated effect, is enough.
  • It does not make every unpleasant landlord a criminal. The conduct must be acts likely to interfere with peace or comfort, or persistent withdrawal of services reasonably required, and there is a reasonable-grounds defence.
  • It does not create a power for the tenant to prosecute in the first instance - proceedings are normally brought by the local authority.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A tenant who has been asking for repairs finds the hot water switched off twice in a fortnight, and the landlord starts calling round in the evenings saying life will be easier for everyone if they simply move out.

How the wording applies

Section 29 is a rewriting section: it does not create a free-standing offence but inserted subsections (3A) to (3C) into section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which is what would actually be charged. The mental element it introduced is the important fact here - knowledge, or reasonable cause to believe the conduct is likely to make the occupier give up occupation or stop pursuing a remedy, rather than proof of intention. Subsection (3B) then leaves the landlord a defence of reasonable grounds.

How the parties settled it

The landlord agrees in writing to restore and maintain the hot water, to make no unannounced visits, and to deal with repairs through a named agent; the tenant agrees to log requests in writing through that agent.

Illustrative example

A landlord cuts off the electricity to a flat for two days during electrical works and is accused of harassment. They say they had no choice because the wiring was unsafe.

How the wording applies

The conduct caught is acts likely to interfere with peace or comfort, or persistent withdrawal of services reasonably required for occupation, coupled with the required state of mind. Subsection (3B) provides that a person is not guilty if they prove they had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withholding the services. The fact that decides it is therefore the genuineness and documentation of the safety reason - and whether the withdrawal was persistent or a bounded interruption with notice.

How the parties settled it

The landlord provides the electrician's report and agrees to give a week's notice and temporary heating for any future outage; the tenant withdraws the complaint to the council on that basis.

Related sections

HA 1988 s. 27 Section 27 Housing Act 1988: damages for unlawful eviction HA 1988 s. 28 Unlawful eviction damages = value diff (HA 1988 s. 28) HA 1988 s. 5 Landlord notice to quit has no effect: HA 1988 s. 5

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of HA 1988 s. 29 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.

← All UK legislation pages