"Begun" or "Brought"? The Section 21 Longstop Debate

The Renters' Rights Act 2025 abolishes Section 21 for new proceedings from 1 May 2026, but existing notices survive if proceedings are begun within the "applicable period" — ending on the earlier of the ordinary six-month Housing Act limit or three months from commencement, i.e. 31 July 2026. The rule is short; the argument underneath it is not. Proceedings "may not be begun if the claimant… requests the court to issue the claim… after the end of the applicable period." Does that mean issued by the court, or merely lodged by the landlord?

The case for "submission is enough"

We start with the words Parliament chose. The prohibited act is the claimant's request to issue — an act wholly within the landlord's control and complete the moment the claim is filed. On this reading, what the court then does, and when, is irrelevant; a claimant who has requested issuance by 31 July has done everything the statute asks. This aligns with the settled limitation principle that a claim is "brought" when received in the court office, not when sealed. It would be odd, the argument runs, for a landlord's substantive rights to evaporate because an overstretched county court took three weeks to press "issue."

The case for "the court must have issued"

Now read the Section 21 machinery, which speaks of proceedings being "begun." In theory proceedings are "brought" when received, but "begun" when the court issues the claim form. If that distinction holds here, the request is a necessary but insufficient step — time stops only on issuance.

Where the 4pm question cuts

The two readings collide over timing. Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd v JJH Enterprises Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1509 confirms CE-File documents filed up to 23:59 are effective "for all purposes, including where time expired on the day in question" — decisive if submission is the test. But CE-File treats post-4:30pm filings as issued the next working day. So a claim e-filed at 5pm on 31 July is in time on the submission theory and out of time on the issuance theory. The same keystroke wins or loses depending on which side of this debate a court eventually takes.

The unresolved bit

No decision yet grapples with the Act's precise wording, so both readings remain live. The cautious adviser hedges toward issuance and files early; the bolder one preserves the submission argument for the client who missed that window. Which is right is, for now, a matter for argument — not assertion.