People may moan about Section 21 and the license it gives to rogue landlords to evict ‘difficult’ tenants claiming their rights. But there is one situation where it is really helpful.
I am talking about the eviction of anti social behaviour tenants.
About anti-social behavour
Anti-social behaviour is a nightmare for tenants, neighbours and landlords. But it is probably worst for other tenants as they bear the brunt. Probably the least affected are landlords, as they usually live elsewhere.
But most landlords will not want their good tenants to be upset by this, so will want to do something about it.
Section 21 was ideal for this.
- Provided the landlord got the process right, there was no defence. So aggrieved neighbours and other tenants could be assured that the menace would be removed after a specific period of time:
- It was relatively straightforward and, therefore, a relatively cheap process
- As the tenant was not accused of anything, they would not feel the need to defend ‘to clear their name’, and
- It was actually beneficial for those tenants as their records would not show that they had been evicted for anti-social behaviour – although tenants and landlords might prefer that it did!
The situation if the Renters Reform Bill is made law
If section 21 is unavailable, landlords will have to use one of the ‘grounds’ for possession – normally, these will be grounds 7A and 14.
Ground 7A
This is a mandatory ground, so if this is made out, then the landlord is assured of his possession order. However, this ground can only be used:
- If the tenant has been convicted of a relevant serious offence, or
- Has breached a relevant injunction, or
- The property is subject to a closure order under the 2014 Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act.
The problem with this is that in most cases, anti-social tenants will not have been prosecuted. The Police tend to regard this sort of thing as a ‘civil matter’ and refuse to intervene, although they are now supposed to take a more active role if it is a domestic violence case.
So, in most cases of anti-social behaviour, the conditions set out in ground 7A will not apply.
Ground 14
This is a discretionary ground which can be used when
- someone has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality, or
- To the landlord, or
- Has been convicted of using the property for immoral or illegal purposes or an indictable offence committed in or in the locality of the property
Which means that in these circumstances (which could be very serious for those having to live with it), an order for possession will only be granted if the judge exercises his discretion to make it.
As many lawyers and landlords will know, Judges have a distressing tendency to give anti-social tenants the benefit of the doubt and ‘one more chance’. Which invariably leads to a further nightmare period for other tenants and neighbours.
The Renters Reform Bill reforms
So far as grounds 7A and 14 are concerned, the reforms set out in the bill are negligible. Amendments provide for the two grounds to be treated similarly and for replacing the words “likely to cause” in ground 14 with “capable of causing”.
It is not possible for the notice period to be reduced further as there is currently no notice period, and the notice can be acted on immediately! However, the main problem with anti-social behaviour is not the notice period before proceedings are issued but the length of time it takes for the Courts to deal with the claim.
To quote Gina Peters, head of the landlord and tenant department at Dutton Gregory (reported here on 20/6/23)
Never in my 27 years as a lawyer have I felt more embarrassed by the delays and unhelpful decisions produced by courts. A client who requested a warrant for possession through me back in November 2022 is still waiting for an eviction date.
With the latest crises in London courts, and bailiffs requiring more personal protection equipment before carrying out evictions, he will be waiting even longer. With significant rent arrears when the order was made, he is losing £1,500 per month until the tenant leaves, meanwhile his mortgage payments have risen in line with interest rate increases. Where is the justice in this?
The Renters Reform Bill does nothing to help with the grotesque delays in our courts. Nor can it, as it is a Bill from the Levelling Up department, not the Justice Department, which is the department in charge of our courts.
But unless something is done, landlords will be faced with expensive and time-consuming cases. Most anti-social tenants faced with eviction will be advised to file a defence. If only to allow them extra time in the property.
If they do so, it is possible this could extend the time taken to obtain a possession order by as much as a year (and increase the hapless landlord’s costs dramatically) – during which time other tenants and neighbours are suffering.
Suggestions I have made in the past
For example here, include
- Granting landlords a possession order as of right if the tenant is convicted of any relevant offence – ideally through an accelerated procedure
- Directing Judges to make orders if three or more separate complaints have been made to the police by separate individuals – in particular, other tenants sharing an HMO
- Allowing landlords to repossess properties quickly if tenants have been given a custodial sentence of more than six months.
It is to be hoped that, at the very least, guidance issued to Judges will require them to give greater weight to the inconvenience and distress suffered by other tenants and neighbours rather than the fact that the anti-social tenant will be rendered homeless.
Although this will not help with the court delays issue. It is hard to see how court procedures can be improved other than by injecting serious funding. Landlords are not the only parties suffering from court delays.
But clearly the government is hoping to deal with landlord and tenant issues in this bill without having to allocate any funding. Something I fear is not possible.
And finally
As I have pointed out in the past – private landlords do not have to be landlords. If things are made too difficult for them, they can sell up and invest their money in less troublesome investments eleswhere.
In which case, that property could be lost to the private rented sector resulting in fewer properties available to tenants. Leading to higher rents.
The difficulty in evicting anti-social tenants may be the final straw which propels landlords to leave the sector. Although many are leaving already.
Is this what the government wants? What do YOU think?