Surely I’m not expected legally to have this tenant in my property forevermore??

Have you ever been in a position of having to rent, yet not meet the criteria for social housing? I have. I don’t get why people seem to think there should be no private landlords. Where do people live if they aren’t eligible for social housing? It’s all fine to suggest that the government should provide rentals for everyone who needs somewhere, but the reality is it will take decades to build enough social housing for everyone who can’t afford to buy.

Treating housing as a way to make (mostly passive) income, by exploiting the basic human need of others for shelter, comes with risks just like any other investment. (I mean 'exploit' here in its literal sense, not a pejorative one, though in the case of a landlord who doesn't bother to ensure safety, both might be true).

Someone has to own the risk, and obviously that should be you, the investor. Either the person who chose to make money in this way risks making a bit less money if they have to delay a sale or sell with a tenant in situ, or else the person who is just meeting a basic human need by renting the house risks becoming homeless whenever it suits the landlord to sell up. Of course the law should protect the person with less power, and much more to lose. You seem to think it should be ther other way around. Boo hoo.

Your best bet is to sell it through a company like ‘Good Move’ who will buy it with tenant in situ, it will be way below market value, but that’s the consequence for not doing the correct checks and paperwork. Tenant will get to stay in the house with a new landlord.
you've fucked up unfortunately and now it’s come back to bite you.
it will cost you time and money to rectify what you haven’t done and evict legally.

Go over to the money saving expert forum. There’s a section on renting/buying where professional landlords will talk you through where you stand and what to do if there’s a way forward.

a little advice, many landlords will take a dim view of such oversights so have a thick skin because you are going to experience criticism but try to ride it out and take any constructive criticism on board.

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/categories/house-buying-renting-selling

My thoughts.
You don't seem to give a shiny shit about your occupant, and I've been at the other end of it myself as a tenant, as have others here!
I really don't have much sympathy for you.

Alternatively...

People who own houses that they don't need to live in themselves, but instead rent out to tenants, should realise that they are only the 'owners', and that house is the tenant's only 'home'.

We are all only on this Earth for a period of time, and it's quite selfish and immoral to lay claim to more space/ resources than you actually need, and profit from another human being's need for shelter...

Whether a gas or electric safety certificate was obtained does alter the legal position, and means that the landlord cannot easily force the tenant to move out. I suspect the other missing paperwork may well be proper notice explaining where the tenant's deposit has been put - this would also legally stymy any attempt to evict (and could result in some hefty compensation being paid to the poor tenant).

Get yourself a new solicitor as the one who has advised you doesn't know what they're talking about! You can issue/provide your tenant with EPC/EICR/etc now in order to comply and then issue your section 21.

I agree, it’s not great to miss something like that, but I’m pointing out to those that feel that this should mean the tenant shouldn’t be evicted full stop, that it’s irrelevant as far as ownership and rights to the property go. Maybe Op should be fined, but it’s a bit harsh to suggest she doesn’t get back her property on the back of it.

Just quite amusing how wrong someone can be.

Why would they move on when it suits them to stay? The tenant is sitting pretty at the moment.

If people want total control over their properties they shouldn't charge other people to live in them. Being a landlord is entirely optional, if they don't like the responsibilities they don't have to do it. Can't have it all ways.

So you became a landlord in order to make money but failed to fulfil even the most basic requirements of that profession and are now suffering the consequences.
If you need to sell you could sell with the tenant in place, but will have to take the hit on price that will inevitably cause.

Either way - this is not the fault of the tenant and they should not be penalised for your inability to run the business you started

OP screwed themselves by not following the law.

Honestly I’m not surprised private rentals are like hens teeth. Which sane person would want to be a landlord? Government better sort themselves out then and get building more social housing, or homelessness is going to get out of control.

Well actually she’s given up her right to an easy eviction by acting illegally, and that is her own fault.

But it’s OPs property? Tenants should realise that they are only ‘renting’. The property is loaned to them for a period of time, with the probability that at some point the landlord will want their property back. And I say this having rented myself for years before I got on the property ladder. Whether a gas or electric certificate was obtained or not doesn’t alter the fact that the property doesn’t belong to the tenant and they need to move on if OP wants their property back…

That's so strange. What's the point of the "fixed term" then? What does it mean?

Yes, but that still doesn’t make the bill law yet.

It received royal assent last week.

It's not law yet

The law has changed very recently with the Renters Rights Act. This abolishes s.21 notices, but one of the grounds for possession is the landlord wishing to sell the property. It’s not straightforward, and as the Act is so new there is inevitably going to be much uncertainty on certain points of interpretation. Definitely get legal advice from a solicitor that is clued up on the new legislation.

Not doing the safety checks is a bit more than an oversight OP. I guess you were trying to make some money off this property on the cheap, and it's backfired. Maybe a useful if painful lesson about pinching pennies with legal and safety requirements costing more down the road. Obviously you're now in a tough spot, and that's hard, but you are where you are.

At this point, coming to a mutually beneficial arrangement with the tenant seems your best bet really.

Did you really expect sympathy when you've acted so badly? Did you do any upkeep on the property?

The owner occupier have full access to information which the tenant doesn't, so it isn't the same .

Thinking about it, wouldn't the owner occupier's insurance have something to say about it?

Cash for keys.