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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll