For many years it has remained on the government’s agenda to ban ‘no-fault’ evictions within the England’s private rental sector.
Such evictions can occur after the initial fixed term of the tenancy has ended. Landlords can provide two months’ written notice, if they have complied with the various regulations and requirements. It is known as the ‘Section 21’ procedure.
A new bill is due to be tabled shortly which, if approved, will implement the proposed ban. The finer details of the proposed bill are not yet known. Dates by which the changes will potentially be implemented are yet to be decided and ministers have commented that landlords will benefit from other measures (such as the procedure to evict tenants for anti-social behaviour being relaxed).
Divided response
This news has been met with varying responses. Organisations campaigning for tenants consider it to be a necessary and long overdue change, with many renters wanting certainty for their housing arrangements, as initial fixed terms for tenancies are often only for six months long.
I think many would agree that is completely understandable, and there is no shortage of heart-breaking stories about tenants and their families being forced out of their homes at short notice despite being good and longstanding tenants.
On the other hand, landlords argue that they are supplementing the woefully short supply of state-owned housing stock. The inability to take control of properties they own, and perhaps only being able to sell them at undervalues with tenants in place, makes the prospect of renting much less desirable.
While the common view may be much less sympathetic towards landlords, the points they make must be considered carefully. Although there must be checks and balances in place, it is an undeniable fact that the rental sector relies upon private landlords.
A sensible compromise
It is difficult to know what the answer to this problem is. I always find in contentious cases that the sign of a “good deal” is where neither party is completely happy. It seemed to me that an extension of the minimum initial fixed term for tenants to 12-18 months, while not perfect, may have been a sensible compromise here. However, it seems the government intend to implement a complete ban.
It is my opinion that, if this bill passes, there will be three worrying consequences:-
- There will be an influx of no-fault evictions ahead of the deadline by which they are to be banned, and many of those properties will then be sold.
- This will reduce the available housing stock whilst simultaneously increasing demand for that stock. With state owned housing stock being inadequate to supply such demand, it must be considered that this will potentially increase homelessness.
- Of the housing stock that remains, rents may spiral as demand increases.
I expect there will be further consultation on this issue, and we can only hope the government listens to, and acts upon, the views expressed from all sides.