When you read about section 21 and its abolition in the press, it all seems to be about tenants’ rights.
I wrote about this also here. Where I discussed how the ever-present prospect of eviction can cause damage to tenants, to society and can encourage criminal landlords.
However, there is another problem with section 21. The cost to Local Authorities of rehousing tenants made homeless under section 21 is causing them acute financial problems.
It is indeed a major reason why many of them are issuing Section 114 notices. Which effectively means that they are bankrupt.
This, in turn, has a devastating effect on all the other services that they provide.
Local Authorities’ obligations to the homeless
One of the duties of Local Authorities is to rehouse people who have been made homeless and who are in ‘priority need’. The duty arises if the following conditions apply:
- They are eligible for assistance (on the whole, this means British nationals)
- They are homeless or are threatened with homelessness
- They fall into one of the ‘priority need’ categories. The most important being families with young children
- They have not made themselves ‘voluntarily homeless’. For example, if they are being evicted because of their behaviour. Or because they have given up accommodation available to them
- They have some sort of local connection with the local authority they apply to. Although, this does not apply if they do not have any local connections at all.
The problem with section 21 is that it is ‘no fault’. So if someone is actually being evicted by their landlord because they are not paying the rent or if they are behaving in an anti-social manner – this is disguised by the fact that the no-fault procedure is being used.
So Local Authorities are being forced to house people who, had the true state of affairs been apparent, would not be eligible for rehousing.
The other problem is the fact that Local Authorities have been forced to sell off much of their housing at an undervalue under the ‘right to buy’. So they do not have much housing available. Meaning that they are forced to house people in expensive hotels and B&Bs. That being the only accommodation available.
The fact that so many people are calling on them to be rehoused, coupled with the fact that they are being forced to rehouse these people in expensive B&B and hotel accommodations, is creating intolerable pressure on many Local Authorities.
The real reason for section 21 abolition by Labour
This is the real reason why Labour is determined to abolish Section 21 at the earliest opportunity.
They want to help tenants, true. But the most important reason is to help Local Authorities stay solvent and reduce the burden of the massive cost of rehousing the homeless.
Indeed I have heard Keir Starmer say this.
If section 21 were abolished
This would not be as bad for landlords as many fear. Particularly if the abolition comes as part of the Renters Reform Bill. As this brings in several other grounds that landlords could use instead.
The advantage of the abolition for Local Authorites is that it would make clear the reason for the eviction.
So if the reason for the eviction was down to tenant behaviour (such as failing to pay rent or behaving badly) then they would have a reason to refuse to rehouse them.
Which would relieve the financial pressure on them.
It might also encourage tenants to behave more responsibly. At present, badly behaved tenants are being rehoused because their landlord is using section 21.
However if the reason for the eviction was apparent, many of them would not be rehoused. Which could result in an improvement in tenant behaviour.
The reduction in rehousing costs will also benefit all of us, if it prevents Councils from issuing Section 114 notices and having to cut services.
Tessa,
1) Most local authorities when dealing with a homelessness application will nonetheless try to find out why a landlord has evicted his tenants, even where the s21 procedure has been used. But obviously a landlord might not respond to their enquiries.
2) The cost of children’s and adults social care is the reason most-often cited for local authorities being in financial difficulties:-
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmcomloc/56/summary.html
Naturally one might wonder why the cost of children’s social care is becoming particularly burdensome. Might it be women waiting until later in life to have children, a higher incidence of serious birth defects among communities where cousin marriage has been practiced for generation-upon-generation? I don’t really know.
As for the increased costs of adult social care perhaps the NHS has got better at keeping us alive for too long and care homes have become the expected storage facility and final destination for too many of us once we start to lose our faculties.
Thanks for your comment, Chris.
Although LAs may try to find out the reason for an eviction, it’s not in the landlord’s interest to tell them! Particuarly if it would delay their moving out.
But you are right, housing the homeless is just one of many increased burdens for LAs.
Surely the problem of the cost faced by Local Authorities as the result of having to rehouse tenants evicted by their landlords would be overcome by compulsory means testing. Virtually all tenants who have been renting privately owned housing would have been paying market value rent, and I see no reason why, if rehoused by their Council in Social Housing property, with its ridiculously low rents, they should be subsidised by the rest of us.
In my view, there is no also no reason why rents paid by persons over retirement age living in Council owned property or in other Social Housing, should not periodically be means tested too, and rents increased in line with earnings. This would go some way towards refunding the thousands of pounds Councils and Housing Association have to spend annually maintaining their properties, towards which tentants make no contribution.
Halldor Brown
apologies. In the last paragraph of my email I accidentally referred to people ‘OVER pensionable age”.