As you may have seen in the news, the Government is planning on changing the law to remove the landlord’s right to evict tenants without giving a reason under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.
This is not going to happen immediately as they will need to consult first – but as Labour also plan to do this it looks as if the demise of section 21 is fairly certain.
You can see the announcement here.
I have my own views but I would like to know what YOU think. So I have done a very short survey. Can you please answer it below. I will publish the results in a few weeks time.
https://speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/ban-no-fault-evictions-why-this-is-dangerously-worse-for-all-renters/
It’s completely counter productive. Follow the incentives through. In renting a property there is a risk you will get a bad Tennant. This risk is mitigated by being able to get rid of a Tennant (relatively) easily. If you add more risk people will demand more money to compensate. Tennant’s are going to be bigger losers than landlords from this.
Not to mention it’s not really no fault. If you pay your rent and take care of the property your landlord isn’t going to evict you.
The writing has been on the wall for some time now. I don’t think there’s any stopping this, so denial and outrage isn’t going to work. I hope that the various groups that represent us (RLA, ARLA, etc.) will instead insist on reforming possession procedures from the ground up.
To be clear – nobody in government is proposing a return to 1977-style protected tenancies. I believe the model the government will follow is the model already in place in Scotland. You can still evict if you need to sell your house, or if you need to move back in, etc. You’re not limited to 1988 Schedule 2 grounds only.
If the model was adopted wholesale, it’s clear that landlords will be immediately worse-off in some ways (three month notices rather than two months in most instances, for example, and mandatory eviction based on rent arrears require three months’ worth of arrears rather than two).
There are possible benefits in exchange, however. It’s been said, quite rightly, that gaining possession under Section 8 for anything other than rent arrears can be difficult. This is cited for one of the reasons why Section 21 is so widely used in the first place. Fair enough. But in Scotland, I believe possession claims are handled by the first tier tribunal rather than the county court.
Is this quicker? Is it easier? Is the evidentiary requirement different?
I don’t know. I’ve heard agents speak positively of the procedure, though.
My thinking is that the abolishment of Section 21 isn’t a problem in itself. It’s an opportunity for us to let ourselves be heard regarding Section 8. But it’s critical that we speak up and say the right things, because the government will not listen to “Don’t do this at all”.
“Not to mention it’s not really no fault. If you pay your rent and take care of the property your landlord isn’t going to evict you.”
I am afraid that is not true, yes a lot of bad tenants are evicted using S21 because the S8 route is so open to fictitious claims of disrepair etc but I have had a number of tenants who have given the reason for leaving their current home is they have been given a S21 because the LL has decided to sell the property – easily verified because they have usually put the property on the market while the tenants are still living there.
Nearly all the things the government are trying to achieve, and more, could be done easily and cheaply using the planning laws without getting rid of S21
I wonder if this change is really about politicians trying to get a popular news story (as this may be interpreted by many) out at a time when there is very little positive to be said about our lot in Westminster.
I would never evict a tenant without good reason anyway; it just doesn’t make business sense. However, I have recently needed to use Section 21 as I required the property for my growing family to move into. I would be worried about the law change if I could no longer evict to:
Sell the property;
Carry out significant improvement work;
or
Move in myself.
Where I have had to use Section 8, it worked for me, but then I had all my ducks in a row. I would be interested to understand the validity of the argument that landlords need Section 21 as Section 8 can’t be relied upon.
Finally, I’m disappointed that retaliatory eviction has been referenced as one of the justifications for this legal change in news articles today, as I understood it was illegal already.
A couple of quick comments.
I spoke to a large HMO landlord recently who told me that he used section 8 grounds (8, 10 and 11) to evict tenants all the time and rarely has any issues. When I did eviction work I also used to use them a lot without problem. So section 8 problems may be exaggerated.
I think the problem with retaliatory eviction is that it depends on the local authorities issuing improvement notices and they are just not doing this.
Thanks for the reply Tessa.
The gist of many comments around this issue in the wider media appear to focus on an apparent need for a shift of power from landlord to tenant. The balance seems pretty good for tenants already, but maybe I’m biased and not seeing things straight. When I see complaints in the media from tenants about retaliatory eviction, I do wonder why such rogue landlords get away with it; your observation that local authorities are not using the powers within their gift may point towards underfunding and understaffing of councils. Much harder for our politicians to solve that than abolish S21.
We know the politicians have a tough job; they need to generate positive news cycles but are severely constrained by their talent, so will go for the low hanging fruit; which in this case is all landlords…
“I spoke to a large HMO landlord recently who told me that he used section 8 grounds (8, 10 and 11) to evict tenants all the time and rarely has any issues.”
Hotels rarely have issues with evictions either. But it’s a very different kettle of apples.
I used section 8 myself for rent arrears cases a LOT when I did eviction work and also rarely had problems. But then I knew what I was doing and did it properly.
The only times I did not get an order was when the tenant paid up.
Cases relating to rent arrears are simple. The other two most common reasons for fault-based eviction would be, I assume, antisocial behaviour and waste. Both require a high bar of evidence and are complex enough to require a solicitor. Even then, it’s such a struggle that I doubt most solicitors would currently recommend Section 8 in those instances when Section 21 is ready and available.
The other issue with Section 8 is the timescale. This is not something I’ve personally experienced as our county court seems to be relatively speedy (hearing dates within four to five weeks of being applied for). But I’m sure we’ve all heard about people waiting months for a hearing.
I’ve done some landlord courses run by a lady at the RLA. She formerly worked for Shelter and defended evictions for tenants. She told us that she and her Shelter colleagues would rub their hands together in glee when a landlord had issued just a S8 notice and not a S21 as there were so many options to go at that they rarely lost.
Hopefully the government plans to rework S8 as currently anything other than mandatory grounds are seemingly a waste of time and money. Judges give chance after chance to bad tenants; and landlords and neighbours are in the meantime putting up with hell. The manditory grounds need to be extended to include anti-social behaviour. It should be the landlords choice to decide that they’d rather incur the extra cost involved with evicting a tenant than keep that tenant. No landlord does this without reason unless they are unhinged.
If they get rid of S21 at least it will end the myth being spread around currently that landlords evict tenants using S21 for the sheer hell of it. It’s sad that in a day when we are moving towards removing blaming and shaming one another in a divorce, we are moving back to this in evictions. If you have a tenant who is being aggressive towards you or his neighbours you really don’t want to antagonise him by sending a list of personal complaints about him. It could well make a bad situation worse. Far better to keep things professional and clinical.
Whatever appears in its place had better be reasonable and workable or we’ll be back to the bad old days. And don’t pretend that rent control isn’t a possibility, it’s already been mentioned as a means to prevent landlords forcing tenants out through rent increases.
“The mandatory grounds need to be extended to include anti-social behaviour.”
They already do, it is ground 7a.
But it is a joke in practise and no private landlord would consider using it.
As for discretionary ground 14…
I haven’t answered the survey as there is no option for question 2 that reflects my opinion. I am somewhat pleased having looked at the full document, particularly this paragraph.
27. Landlords need to have confidence that they will be able to regain their property quickly in cases where the tenant has broken the terms of their tenancy agreement or where the landlord has other reasonable grounds. Without these assurances, landlords may be prompted to leave the market, which would not help tenants. We are therefore planning to introduce new Section 8 grounds, in parallel to removing Section 21, to strengthen the rights of landlords to recover their properties when necessary, including when they want to sell or move into the property themselves. The Government will consider limiting the use of these new grounds until the tenancy has lasted for two years to provide tenants with additional security.
On the other hand I was getting pretty angry with the BBC when listening to the radio as I was driving home yesterday, They kept going on about landlords being able to evist with 2 months notice. Since it took me 6 months to get rid of a non-paying tenant the only time I used S21 that seemed very misleading. I didn’t even get to the statge of evicting as he left shortly before the possesion order date.