BARRISTER MAGAZINE

The End of No-Fault Evictions: The Unintended Consequences of Reform

By Farhan Asghar, CEO, The Solicitors, Advocates & Barristers Inc

Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 grants landlords the power to evict tenants without providing a specific reason, often referred to as a ‘no-fault eviction’. This provision has been a cornerstone of the private rented sector, allowing landlords to regain possession of their property after serving a minimum of two months’ notice.

The Debate Over Abolition of Section 21

The potential abolition of Section 21 has sparked intense debate. Proponents argue that it will enhance tenant security and reduce the fear of eviction, encouraging tenants to report disrepair without repercussions. It could also potentially alleviate pressure on the housing market by discouraging landlords from using Section 21 as a tool to quickly vacate properties for higher rents.

Conversely, opponents of abolition contend that it will reduce landlords’ flexibility and increase the risk of being stuck with problematic tenants. They argue that this could lead to a decrease in available rental properties, as landlords may be deterred from entering the rental market or opt to sell their properties instead.

The Path to Abolition

In its 2024 election manifesto, the Labour Party pledged to abolish no fault evictions immediately. This seems unlikely. The previous Renters Reform Bill, introduced by the Conservatives, was dropped before the 2024 general election.

The King’s Speech 2024 confirmed there will be a new Renters’ Rights Bill which will overhaul the private rented sector and strengthen tenants’ rights. It will therefore be a substantial piece of legislation dealing with things in addition to section 21 notices. All of this will take time and by the time the Bill passes through Parliament and is actually implemented, it will likely be well into 2025.

The abandoned Renters Reform Bil proposed strengthening the current grounds for possession set out in section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, this included new grounds such as if the landlord intended to occupy or sell the property, if there were repeated rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. It seems likely that at least some parts of the Renters Reform Bill will make it over to the new Renters Rights Bills, but exactly how much remains to be seen.

Beyond Abolition: The Broader Picture

The abolition of Section 21 is just one piece of the puzzle. The government will also need to address the broader landscape of the private rented sector. This includes:

Impact on Landlords

One argument against abolishing Section 21 is that it could lead to a decrease in the number of properties available to rent. This could occur for several reasons:

Impact on the Legal Profession

Housing Lawyers will need to be braced for the changes. There are likely to be a flurry of landlords serving section 21 notices before any changes take effect, and once changes come into force there is likely to be an increase in contested court hearings, and therefore increased demand for legal services. Legal Aid for housing claims has been cut significantly over the years, and there is likely to be an upsurge in the amount of tenants appearing as litigants in person. Housing Lawyers will also need to ensure their clients are making use of any new Ombudsman Scheme where applicable.

Impact on Private tenants

The abolition of Section 21 may also influence the types of tenant’s landlords are willing to accept. To mitigate risks, landlords might:

These changes could disproportionately affect young people, those on low incomes, or individuals with less traditional employment, limiting their housing options. The private rented sector will undergo a period of significant change. The success of the reforms will depend on a careful balance between the rights of landlords and tenants, as well as effective implementation and enforcement.

Ironically, the changes may well create a tighter rental market, potentially driving up rents and reducing tenant choice. Disputes may also end up taking longer if an Ombudsman Scheme is not properly funded; the government must be wary of the law of unintended consequences.

Farhan Asghar, CEO, The Solicitors, Advocates & Barristers Inc

Exit mobile version