A controversial change due to be brought about in the proposed Renters’ Reform Bill is the abolition of Section 21 evictions, which is intended to ‘professionalise’ the private rented sector.
However, research carried out by Leaders Romans Group (LRG) has found that Section 21 is rarely overused, and even more rarely misused.
Currently, Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 allows landlords to evict tenants without having to give a reason and tenants’ representatives believe that this leaves them vulnerable to so-called ‘no fault’ eviction and so afraid to complain to their landlord.
However, LRG surveyed 271 landlords across its estate agency brands Gibbs Gillespie, Hose Rhodes Dickson, Leaders, Moginie James, Portico, Romans and Scott Fraser and found that 80% of landlords have never used Section 21. Of those that had, 6% did so when the tenant was in breach of the lease and only 3% where the tenant was not in breach of the lease.
Allison Thompson, national lettings managing director at LRG, commented: “Leaders Romans Group, along with the majority of our landlords, is committed to raising standards. But while we are fully supportive of ‘professionalising’ the private rented sector, many of the proposed changes, including the repeal of Section 21, would pose new challenges to landlords which could penalise both landlords and tenants.
“It is important to bear in mind that private landlords are vital to meeting increased demand in the rental sector and that unnecessary measures which would result in an exodus of landlords from the market would be detrimental to rental affordability.”
LRG also believes that the government should rethink its proposals surrounding assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs). It has been suggested that tenants should be permitted to serve notice of two months’ at any point, but LRG believes this would create considerable uncertainty for landlords, which is “unwelcome in an already challenging market”.
Thompson said: “There has been a request to amend this, so that two months’ notice is only permissible when the tenant had been in the property for at least four months. This compromise would provide some further security for landlords, while allowing flexibility for tenants.”
