header-logo header-logo

Section 21 evictions given short shrift

17 April 2019
Issue: 7837 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail
Proposed changes could be ‘final straw’ for private landlords

Lawyers have expressed concerns about government proposals to ban ‘no-fault’ evictions―including that it could cause rents to rise.

The government announced proposals this week to repeal s 21 of the Housing Act 1988, which is used to obtain possession after a fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy ends or during a tenancy with no fixed end date. Once a s 21 notice is served, tenants have two months to vacate the premises.

Communities secretary James Brokenshire said some tenants avoid making complaints in case they are evicted.

Under the proposals, landlords would have to provide a ‘concrete, evidenced reason already specified in law’ to end the tenancy. Ministers will amend the s 8, Housing Act 1988 eviction process so that landlords can evict tenants if they want to sell the property or move into it themselves, and court processes will be ‘expedited’ to help landlords if their tenants fall into arrears or damage the property.

However, Joanne Young, legal director in Ashfords’ property litigation team, said: ‘No one can argue that there are some very poor practices by some private landlords, but this ignores the excellent private landlords who are providing great quality housing for tenants.

‘Those landlords, landlords I see on a day to day basis, do not use s 21 without good reason; it is used simply because it provides a means of obtaining possession that does not result in long court proceedings—proceedings that can have a significant financial impact on those landlords. Unless there are real improvements in the court process, I fear these proposals may be the final straw for many private landlords. I share the concerns that, in the long term, this may simply drive many landlords out of the market.’

James Browne, head of the property group at Lamb Chambers, said he had no confidence the possession procedure would be speeded up.

‘Landlords routinely wait for two months between issuing a claim and a first hearing. The ongoing county court closure process and inadequate judicial recruitment leads to cases being block-listed at 10am and often not heard until late in the afternoon leading to delay and increased legal costs.’

Issue: 7837 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll