[ad_1]
A property company has denied accusations that it tried to mass-evict tenants ahead of the ban on Section 21 “no-fault” evictions, saying it was carrying out routine tenancy management.
Criterion Capital, founded by billionaire property owner Asif Aziz, issued a statement after housing minister Matthew Pennycook wrote to the company requesting details of its plans.
Reports indicate that Criterion has served Section 21 notices—formal notices of proposed eviction—on a number of tenants. At Prime Minister’s Questions this month, Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh said she was aware of at least 130 notices issued at one development, Britannia Point, in her Mitcham and Morden constituency.
In his letter, Pennycook said that if the company were attempting to evict tenants before the Renters’ Rights Act takes effect on 1 May, it would be an example of “thoroughly unscrupulous” behaviour.
Criterion responded to the Guardian by saying that the reporting was “inaccurate and politicised,” and that it had issued 87 Section 21 notices across its portfolio, representing fewer than 5% of its tenants. The company said the actions were part of routine and lawful tenancy management, not mass evictions.
It said: “Where tenants have expressed a wish to remain, we are actively engaging and agreeing renewed tenancy terms. The service of notice does not preclude continued occupation.”
In their statement, Criterion accused politicians of “presenting demonstrably untrue claims causing unnecessary alarm to tenants for political visibility”.
It added: “Tenants in private market-rent accommodation should not be used as cannon-fodder for political campaigning. The repeated use of the term ‘mass eviction’ is inaccurate and irresponsible.”
Following Criterion Capital’s denial trying to mass-evict tenants before England’s no-fault evictions ban, Kristine Ng, partner at law firm Morr & Co, where she specialises in property dispute, has shared her thoughts.
She stated: “There is understandable concern about the way section 21 notices are being used in the period immediately before their abolition on 1 May.
“While serving notice seeking possession before the Renters’ Rights Act comes into force may still be lawful, action taken at scale and at this late stage of the reform timetable inevitably attracts scrutiny, particularly where it creates uncertainty for large numbers of tenants.
“Where section 21 notices do not result in voluntary moves, disputes are likely to progress into possession proceedings, adding further pressure to an already overstretched court system and increasing delays for all parties.
“The consequences extend beyond individual landlord and tenant relationships. Tenants who are unable to secure alternative accommodation may turn to local authorities for temporary housing, shifting cost and responsibility onto councils at a time of acute housing pressure.
“There is also a less visible effect. Faced with the prospect of eviction, some tenants may feel compelled to accept new tenancy arrangements on less favourable terms, including higher rents or more onerous conditions, simply to secure continuity of housing. That dynamic risks distorting bargaining power at precisely the point when the reforms are intended to rebalance it.
“When these consequences are considered together, the result is not greater clarity but a redistribution of pressure across the sector. Once the ban on no‑fault evictions takes effect, possession will need to be justified by reference to specific statutory grounds, rather than the unilateral service of notice.
“The critical issue now is how the transition is managed because actions taken in the final weeks of the current regime will shape confidence in the private rented sector for some time to come.
“The key takeaway is that the issue is not simply whether section 21 notices remain lawful today, but how large‑scale use in the final weeks risks displacing pressure and uncertainty across the system just as the sector is preparing to move to a more structured post‑reform framework.”
[ad_2]
Source link
