What happens when Section 21 no fault evictions are abolished?

6th December 2024

Abolishing Section 21 “no-fault” evictions, a key part of UK housing law, will have significant implications for both tenants and landlords. Section 21 currently allows landlords to evict tenants without providing a reason, as long as they follow the correct legal procedures, such as giving at least two months notice. If Section 21 were abolished, several outcomes would likely occur, both in terms of tenant protection and landlord rights.

Impacts on Tenants:

1. Greater Security of Tenure:
   Tenants would be less vulnerable to arbitrary eviction, as landlords would no longer be able to end a tenancy simply by issuing a notice. This would provide tenants with more stability and could help alleviate the stress and uncertainty that comes with the possibility of eviction.
2. Potential Reduction in Unlawful Evictions:
   Abolishing Section 21 could reduce the number of so-called “retaliatory evictions,” where landlords evict tenants after they have raised issues about poor conditions or repairs. Without the option of using Section 21 to bypass dispute resolution, landlords may be less likely to act out of spite or frustration.
3. Encouragement of Longer Tenancies:
   With greater protection, tenants might feel more confident in staying in a property for longer, knowing they are less likely to be evicted without cause. This could help foster a more stable rental market and increase the availability of long-term rental contracts.
4. Possibly Reduced Flexibility for Some Tenants:
   While tenants generally benefit from greater security, some might prefer the flexibility that Section 21 evictions provide landlords. In cases where tenants want to move out quickly (e.g, for personal or job-related reasons), the abolition of Section 21 could result in a less flexible system.

Impacts on Landlords:

1. More Difficult Eviction Process:
   Without Section 21, landlords would need to rely on Section 8 eviction proceedings, which require specific grounds (e.g, rent arrears, breach of contract, anti-social behavior). This makes eviction more time-consuming and challenging, especially in situations where a tenant is causing issues but has not breached the terms of the tenancy agreement.
2. Increased Legal and Administrative Costs:
   The process for evicting tenants could become more complex and costly for landlords. They would likely need to go through the courts, which can take several months, and would also have to gather evidence to prove their case for eviction. This may deter some landlords from renting out properties, particularly those who are unwilling or unable to navigate the legal process.
3. Potential for Increased Rent:
   Some landlords may respond to the reduced flexibility in eviction by raising rents to offset the increased risk and administrative burden. This could lead to higher rental prices, especially in areas where rental demand is already high.
4. Possible Impact on Small Landlords:
   Small landlords, who may not have the resources to manage lengthy legal processes or who rely on quick turnover to mitigate financial risk, could be more negatively affected. This could lead to some choosing to sell their properties or reduce their rental portfolio.

Impact on the Housing Market:

1. Stabilising the Rental Market:
   The abolition of Section 21 could help stabilise the private rental sector, as tenants would be less likely to face sudden evictions. This could lead to fewer people being forced into temporary or insecure housing situations, such as emergency accommodation or staying with friends and family.
2. Shifting Towards Longer Tenancies:
   In the absence of Section 21, the culture of short-term tenancies could shift towards longer-term agreements, which might help address housing instability. This could also encourage greater investment in rental properties and maintenance, as both landlords and tenants would have more long-term interests in the condition of the property.
3. Increased Pressure on Local Authorities and Social Housing:
   If more tenants remain in the private rental market for longer periods, this could increase pressure on local authorities and social housing providers to accommodate those in need. On the other hand, landlords might find ways to mitigate risks through rent increases or more stringent tenant screening processes, which could affect affordability.

Legal and Policy Considerations:

1. Increased Reliance on Section 8:
   With Section 21 abolished, landlords would need to use Section 8 to evict tenants, but Section 8 has a higher legal bar to meet, requiring landlords to prove grounds such as arrears or breach of tenancy. This could result in more contentious and lengthy eviction cases.
2. Potential for Legal Reform:
   There might be calls for additional reforms to balance the rights of landlords and tenants. For example, changes could be made to ensure that tenants are protected from retaliatory evictions while still allowing landlords to regain possession of their property in cases of genuine need (e.g., for sale or personal use).
3. More Tenant-Friendly Policies:
   The abolition of Section 21 could signal a move towards broader tenant protection policies, such as rent control, longer fixed-term tenancies, or increased support for renters who face financial hardship.

Conclusion:

Abolishing Section 21 “no-fault” evictions would primarily benefit tenants by offering greater security of tenure, reducing the risk of retaliatory or arbitrary evictions. However, landlords would face challenges in evicting tenants without specific grounds, potentially increasing administrative costs and reducing flexibility in the rental market. Over time, this could lead to a more stable rental market, but it could also prompt changes in rental prices and policies. The impact would depend on how the government balances the interests of both parties and supports the private rental sector through other reforms.

What are your thoughts on the Section 21 being abolished?