Yes there are many in the courts as a result of ignoring responsibilities, and some who haven't but have run into run into financial difficulties and haven't been able to get a rent areas deal without the courts help
But, in the same stories: here's a classic one of a landlord who's brought a property with a good, clockwork rent paying tenant in situ, then either expected to be able to force the tenant out so they could make a lot more from a new tenant, or expected to be able to transfer their financial woes onto their tenant as a cash cow when the landlord ran into financial difficulties.
If the proposed increase wasn't hot on the heels of earlier ones, was "fair and realistic" and in line with average local rents then the landlord would have served a section 13, and the tenant would almost certainly have been forced to accept the increase or leave. Often the section 13 and 21 are served together.
So either the landlord knew the demands to be unreasonable so tried to just use a section 21 to get rid, or a section 13 had already gone to the First-tier Tribunal and been found to be unreasonable and unfair and the landlord ruled against.
(the situation my SH landlord is in, having tried to massively raise rents to make us pay for their decades of total neglect and rotten conditions, while they land banked and then having had to do repairs, have systematically section 21'd for not providing constant continuous access for a year plus, so they can reduce footprints and squeeze in more studio flats. Additional storage costs to live in a building site to keep my tenancy are crippling me)
The tenant probably cant get a mortgage so selling it them is a non starter, the landlord apparently can't wait till whenever the annual increase is due, or wants an extortionate amount for the location or condition of the property and 'mediation' has broken down with the tenant not agreeing to bail the landlord out as demanded..
Note that after the court has told them they cant do this, the representative tells the tenant to offer more money or they'll seek other ways of getting them out.
Tenant of 30 years has claim against him struck out
A claim for possession launched against a private tenant has just been struck out of court, as the judge deemed the tenancy could not be ended under Section 21 of the Housing Act, external.
The homeowner had bought the property with the tenant in situ, with him living there since the 1990s, and a tenancy agreement thought to have been in place since 1997.
"The rent has been paid like clockwork," admits the representative of the owner in court, but says the owner has now experienced financial hardship and the rent needed to be put up.
Mediation had broken down between both parties, with offers of a sale to the tenant allegedly being a "non-starter".
Outside the courtroom the representative for the owner asks the tenant to consider a counter offer for rental increase, saying even though possession could not be taken under Section 21 today, they would be forced to pursue it in other ways.
,,, a 27-year-old mother walks out of her hearing looking shell-shocked.
She has just heard she is going to lose her home.
The woman - a single parent of two children, aged four and eight - says she did not expect to be evicted.
The nursery assistant fell behind with rent payments and owes more than £1,000.
When I ask why she was unable to pay, she replies: "I have a lot of things going on."
Giving the landlord the benefit of the doubt that they have genuinely run into financial problems, it is sad for both the landlord who thinks the tenant should subsidize them, and for the single mum who expected the landlord to subsidize her, but the law says neither is acceptable, Cost of living crisis or not.