header-logo header-logo

14 April 2019
Categories: Legal News , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail

‘No-fault’ evictions to end

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 the government has evidence that some tenants avoid making complaints in case they are made subject to a ‘no-fault eviction’. He said: ‘We are making the biggest change to the private rental sector in a generation.’

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. I also suspect that the “rogue” element of landlords will continue as they do at present―with little regard to the law.’

James Browne, head of the property group at Lamb Chambers, said: ‘The government has not made it clear whether its proposed new grounds for possession where the landlord can prove he wants to sell the property or move into it himself will be mandatory or discretionary.

‘Nor is there any good reason to have confidence in the assurances given that the current possession procedure will 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.

'The real risk for landlords, tenants and the government is that a poorly thought through reform will lead to many private sector landlords deciding to sell up and get out of the market. That will drive house prices down, which may be a desired by-product of the government’s proposed reforms. But it will not help renters. They will find that shortage of properties leads to increased private rents, and that the social housing sector will simply be unable cope with the increased demand placed on it.’

The Department of Housing, Communities & Local Government will launch a consultation on the proposals ‘shortly’.

 

Categories: Legal News , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll