If you are issued a section 21 notice, and there is no hearing, there is no way to contest costs. The judge has discretion to award costs or not.

I was issued a section 21 because I would not accept a rent increase. No other issues with the tenancy. Costs were awarded.

Whether a section 21 is issued or not is completely at the landlords discretion. Then forcing a tenant who is otherwise not in breach of the tenancy to bear that cost seems to be a violation of the consumer contracts act, 2015.

I want to take that to small claims. Do I have a case?

As I understand it, small claims will be loath to overturn costs orders, but section 21 is an "administrative procedure". Perhaps the costs are "administrative" also, and not strictly awarded court costs?

A s21 is a 'no fault' Notice and can only take effect at end of fixed term and after several other requirements of LL. Judges apply costs to 'loser'. If LL had failed to protect your deposit, he would have lost first action and bear the costs, so your first assertion is wrong.

If Ts can ignore rent increases, without fearing s21 Repo, rents would still be at 1988 levels

Go to supermarket or any store, your choice whether to purchase at indicated price. You can't tell vendor your not prepared to pay the price as it is higher than last year/week price.

Petrol is a good example, you either need it or not. It may be higher or lower price at next petrol station. Take your case to SCC, it will cost you and even if you win, it will not alter Case Law.

LL can give notice for any reason whatever, it's no fault. If the T doesn't move out on two months, he is effectively fined £355.

Does that seem fair to you? The tenancy agreement is no more than a gentlemans agreement, tenant has no rights at all.

Remember, there is no breach of tenancy at all. Just told to pay more or move out. I am entitled to disagree.

Per fair contracts law, any such costs are unfair, where they are completely in the control of the contractor. There is actually a fair amount of guidance on it on the old OFT website.

The tricky bit is that the fee is regarded as a court costs award.

Some may say T had duration of fixed term to know when AST ends + min 2 cal months (s21 expiry) before LL can seek Court Repo hearing, so T can avoid Repo costs, which can also inc £110 for Bailiff costs.

It is for Judge to decide whether to apply known costs against T, if LL requests them.

If you don't want to pay, then vacate T (with due Notice) by expiry date of s21.

LL can give notice for any reason whatever, it's no fault. If the T doesn't move out on two months, he is effectively fined £355.

 

Does that seem fair to you?

I think that many people appreciate that the current system of short term tenancies gives the landlord a lot of power over the tenant.

Hopefully, if tenancy fees are banned then at least moving house is less of a cost. And this will reduce the leverage that landlords have.

So I would suggest you write to your MP supporting this proposal and asking him to press for it to be put into the law.

In the meantime the law is that the landlord has the right to, effectively, request the tenant to leave with 2 months' valid notice. And if the tenant does not leave, the landlord has the right to request eviction and request that the tenant pays. So unfortunately, you may not have any comeback on the landlord.