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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll