By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.


Abolishing Section 21 could adversely affect housing supply

The government’s proposal to scrap Section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act is likely to deter many people from investing in the buy-to-let sector and encourage existing landlords to exit the market, thus adding to the housing shortage crisis, according to Just Landlords.

The landlord insurance provider fears that the government’s plans to abolish Section 21 in a bid to end so-called ‘no-fault’ evictions will have a major impact on the market.

Removing the ability to evict with Section 21 will undoubtedly concern many buy-to-let investors, especially smaller landlords, which could result in a rise in evictions in the short-term, as landlords look to exit the market.


Rose Jinks, spokesperson for Just Landlords, said: “If the government does decide to scrap Section 21 completely, then landlords will need support on how to regain possession of their properties in legitimate circumstances, such as when they need to sell.”

“We are concerned that this latest change to legislation could further deter landlords from investing in the private rental sector, as we have seen recently, which could dampen housing supply and make it more difficult for tenants to find homes.

“What we’re most concerned about is how this will negatively affect tenants in the long-term. We fully support the Government’s aim of improving tenants’ rights, but the effects need to be considered before any changes are implemented.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    The planned change seems fair. Why should a landlord retain the power to evict a tenant who keeps to the terms of the tenancy agreement. The tenanted property may mean cash for the landlord, but it's a stable roof over the heads for tenants, who will have built up local contacts, etc., maybe even local schools for their kids. I understand that landlord wills retain the right to serve eviction notices if the tenants break the terms of the tenancy agreement, if they wish to sell the property, or if they themselves wish to move into their property - so the proposed change result in a good balanced situation of fairness now. Everyone should be happy,


    David, we rarely evict tenants for no reason, why would we? the reason we use section 21 over section 8 is that section 21 is quicker and cheaper when we need to evict a non paying tenant.

    • 30 April 2019 14:04 PM

    Mate the reason why a tenant should not have security of tenure is because a a sole trader LL should always be able to withdraw his capital when he wishes.
    There should be NO security of tenure beyond the initial 6 month fixed term tenancy.
    LL should not have their capital controlled by tenants.
    Tenants know that their tenancy can be terminated at any time if the LL so chooses.
    I will not have the likes of you dictating what I do with my capital.
    As long as I CHOOSE to remain in business I will let my properties to tenants who I think can give me the most PROFIT.
    I provide good quality accommodation but I decide who occupies them.
    I haven't evicted a single tenant who wished to remain; all of them on SPT.
    However I had to EVICT 5 of the waster scum tenants for rent arrears.
    As long as my tenants wished to remain and were prepared to pay the usual annual rent increase then they have stayed.
    Only 2 tenants vacated due to refusal to pay increased rent.
    I replaced them with higher rent paying tenants.
    Tenants like you need to get over yourselves.
    The PRS is not a secure form of occupation.
    It is in the nature of the beast.
    However it is secure as long as the LL wishes to continue to profit from letting their properties.
    But LL should always retain the ability to remove tenants when they wish.
    If you want tenure security then as has been suggested go and buy your own property.
    See how you manage when you fail to pay the mortgage.
    You would find yourself homeless pretty quickly.
    Lenders don't suffer mortgage defaulting gladly like LL have to suffer rent defaulting tenants due to the dysfunctional eviction process.
    S21 at least gave LL a semblence of control over their properties

  • icon

    So Sorry that I was ever a LL & have to put up with this nonsense. The Tenants have all rights already & we have none, then LL is responsible for everything & criminalised + pay all incl’ trumped up penalties. So you want more freedom just buy your own & pay your Mortgage the lender don’t put up with your nonsense or have trouble getting the Property back. There is no shortage of Housing just thousands of Flats being built clearly not required because of subsidised Schemes.

  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    As Paul said, the vast majority of Tenancies last over 4 years, There just simply isn't the evidence to suggest the need for removal of Sec 21. ( what Landlord is going to go to SIGNIFICANT Time, expense and Trouble to evict a compliant paying Tenant ? - think about it, - shouldn't take too long. ! )
    Another thing, its Not the Private Sector's job to provide security of Tenure, that's the Governments, and if they're not doing so because of selling off homes or not building new ones, - the PRS should not be the whipping boys. !

  • Suzanne Morgan

    I have one property which I rent out for a return on my capital investment . No interest when kept in the bank. Responsible landlords will look after a good tenant as it is in no one's interest to evict and go to the expense and trouble of a new unknown one. Tenants have most of the rights and landlords shoulder the costs at all times. Leave the sector alone and the best way of ensuring landlord compliance is for licensing as in Wales. I have to have a license to manage my own property in Chepstow.


    Hi Suzanne
    I also have property in Chepstow.
    I think though, that Rent Smart Wales is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
    They are not proactive in sifting out rogue landlords and the only ones inconvenienced by this as always, are the good landlords.
    Also, there is no inspection regime to ascertain if a property is fit for habitation and I know of at least one that is licensed, but the building is in a shocking state of disrepair.
    I would agree with a system that actually sifts out the wrongdoers who rent out substandard properties for undeclared cash.
    These people are still getting away with it to some extent, unless brought to the attention of RSW.
    This system is flawed because it is not doing what it is set out to do.

    Suzanne Morgan

    John Hughes Hi. Unable to reply on your comment but thank you for info on Rent Smart Wales being less than proactive in enforcing their own standards and protocol. That is a real disappointment as having paid to sit my exam and then register it is a bit of a let down. I am assuming that the house you refer to which is substandard has not been reported to RSW.! Again as you say, the rogue landlord gets away with poor standards and it the reflects on the who rented centre. Yes very disappointing.

  • icon
    • 30 May 2019 13:29 PM

    I don't believe any legal LL would object to a National LL Licensing scheme at say £100 per property every 5 years.
    Ensuring full compliance with all lender conditions etc etc.
    That will make a few LL bankrupt!!!

    Suzanne Morgan

    Paul That is true. As a licensed landlord (the law in Wales) It keeps me on my toes and ensures my tenant is in a decent well maintained property. The license is renewed 5 yearly. I had to do an exam on line to get my license and it means I can do without an Agent. It should be brought in here in England

  • icon
    • 30 May 2019 16:27 PM

    Yep I believe the RSW model is the bare minimum that England should introduce.
    Somehow the mass fraud that is occurring in the PRS needs to be stopped.
    Why should a fraudulent LL get away with letting to a HB tenant when it is most likely his lender conditions specifically prohibit HB or DSS tenants?
    That is unfair competition.
    There should be far more homeless if LL weren't fraudulent.
    That would mean my rents could be higher.
    Fraudster LL keep my rents depressed.
    Licensing is one way to ensure a level playing field.
    We should hopefully see about 300000 properties sold soon as a consequence of the reduction in lettings relief.
    There should be a rush by fraudster Accidental LL to sell off former residential properties before they are clobbered by the new taxes after about 2020 I believe.
    This as very few have CTL etc
    That will hopefully cause there to be lots more homeless so we legal LL can jack up our rents to more realistic market levels.
    But I fear that waiting for licensing in England will be a bit like Waiting For Godot!!
    He never does come!!!
    I am afraid fraudster LL will continue to exist and this means rents far lower than they would be if there was a totally legal PRS.
    Crime does pay as evidenced by the millions of fraudulent tenancies.


    Load of twaddle most lenders don’t give a flying fxxk who LL let to as long as they get paid on time. To call them / us fraudsters is bordering on offensive in this climate. Its tough out there and u have to do what u can. You are talking shxte I’m afraid.

  • icon

    U seem to have to much time on ur hands judging by the length of ur posts which many our good by the way but that last one was way off

  • icon
    • 30 May 2019 18:53 PM

    Sorry chaps but vast numbers of LL are engaged in actual and technical fraud.
    Pointless denying it.
    As such these fraudster LL are unfair competition to LL that do comply with regulations and conditions.
    It is irrelevant if LL lenders don't give a ###k that LL are breaching loan conditions.
    They would if they became aware that LL are breaching mortgage conditions.
    Just accept that I am correct.
    Believe me if licensing is introduced all you fraudster LL will be found out.
    So to fraudster LL I suggest you obtain CTL on resi mortgages
    Obtain CTL for HB tenants
    Obtain correct LL insurance with HB tenants.
    Ensure that freeholders are in agreement of how you let your flats.
    Which means invariably no short-term letting.
    Getting rid of fraudster LL would substantially reduce the PRS to leave only fully compliant ones.
    Fraudster LL are unfair competition to those that are fully compliant.
    To not recognise they exist is very naive.
    To ignore the vast amount of fraud in the PRS is unwise
    LL doing things correctly are being competed against unfairly.
    No LL should be supporting unfair competition.
    A proper and thorough National LL licensing scheme would find out a lot of these fraudster LL.
    I hope such a scheme occurs ASAP to root out all the LL gaming the system that are unfairly competing against me
    I know of a LL in my block who is letting unfairly on AirBnB.
    The Freeholders do not give permission.
    The mortgage product doesn't allow AirBnB
    The block insurance doesn't allow short-term letting.
    I haven't yet decided yet whether to grass this fraudster LL up.
    She is having to commit fraud because she can't sell for sufficient price to redeem the loan and to pay CGT.
    So she commits fraud to prevent bankruptcy.
    Obviously completely understandable but still fraudulent and still unfair competition with me.
    If I was in the same situation as her I would have no qualms at all over gaming the system.
    The system currently allows this to occur but it shouldn't!
    So I would make it a legal requirement of a National LL Licensing scheme that until documentation had been received allowing HB tenants etc then no property would be allowed to be let.
    We simply cannot allow anymore fraudster LL to compete unfairly with those that do comply.
    It must be the case that most LA are fully complicit in fraud as they must know that many LL are not complying with relevant conditions.
    Currently there is no imperative to ensure LL compliance.


    i think you have a screw loose--pls stop posting your nonsense

  • icon
    • 30 May 2019 20:42 PM

    When will you learn it is not nonsense.
    You are an idiot if you don't believe the problems I have highlighted exist.
    You clearly don't know much about being a LL if you are unaware of these problems.
    Why would you deny they exist!?
    You have a lot to learn about life if you are unaware of these obvious issues.

  • icon

    i stand by my comments

  • icon
    • 30 May 2019 20:54 PM

    Mate you have just outed yourself as an idiot.
    Why would you do that!?
    Are you seriously suggesting that the issues I have pointed out don't exist!!??
    You have to be out of your tiny mind to think they don't.
    By chance are you letting to HB tenants when your BTL mortgage prohibits this!?
    If so you are a fraudster LL.
    I accept and appreciate that lenders shouldn't even have this restriction but we are where we are.
    Do we LL decide what lender conditions we take notice of!?
    I would imagine that lenders would take a dim view of such gaming of their products.
    Of course such gaming of the system allows tenants to be housed.
    Without much gaming there would be a lot more homeless and far fewer LL.
    To deny such gaming goes on is just plain stupid.
    You seem to suggest that no gaming occurs and that LL are as pure as the driven snow!
    What is your agenda!?
    Mine is transparent and completely fair competition.

  • icon

    Please no infighting

  • icon
    • 30 May 2019 21:44 PM

    No infighting but surely we cannot have circumstances where patently obvious realities are denied.
    Whether such realities are liked or not is surely besides the point.
    Dealing with and managing such realities is surely the only fair thing to do.
    Shouldn't the PRS comprise of fair competition amongst LL!?
    Well if you have LL gaming systems that clearly isn't fair on those that play fairly.

  • icon

    No infighting sure we are all stressed out, there is no fair competition when some letting landlord have to be licensed & restricted while others let to families, no license required no restrictions on numbers while most have free living at tax payers expense. Council waiting lists getting longer every day because people are designing their lives to live off the system. The HB should have been sorted out years ago to stop false claimants, then there would be no housing problem, but they are king and untouchable.

  • icon
    • 31 May 2019 02:01 AM

    You make some extremely valid points.
    Essentially we have large parts of the population behaving as scroungers.
    They are as you have suggested designing their feckless lifestyles to ensure they have the best of facilities for the least input.
    Welfare provides a rather comfortable lifestyle without the actual bother of working full time.
    Of course lots of LL assisted these HB tenants in their feckless lifestyles.
    They did so as it was highly profitable.
    Well since the Tories rightly introduced the OBC HB tenants for a wide variety of reasons have become less profitable than those tenants not in receipt of HB.
    Well now that LL don't want these HB tenants anymore as they are no longer as profitable as tenants not on HB the feckless are up in arms that LL don't want them anymore.
    This means a far less comfortable welfare lifestyle for the feckless who now invariably find themselves stuck in some pretty appalling TA rather than a nice LL rental property.
    I recollect that LL who did take on HB tenants were variously accused of being subsidised by the State who who paying their mortgages.
    Whereas now that LL are increasingly refusing to take on those self same HB tenants they are now accused of discriminating against them................a bit of a Catch 22 situation I think!!!
    Even with LL actively declining HB tenants the tenants are still very clever at gaming the system.
    All we LL can do is to not let to them.
    But you can get that if HB neared market rents that LL would start taking on HB tenants again.
    Afraid the UK is a soft touch.
    Which is why there are estimated to be about 400000 EU migrants occupying council houses.
    How this was allowed beats me!
    I'm sure there are plenty of UK nationals that would have loved a council house.
    But it seems EU nationals receive priority over UK citizens.
    Very strange.


    Well Paul your comment goes on a bit , as normal, but is certainly spot on, sums up the ever increasing army of scroungers that governments seem to encourage and we have to pay for.

  • icon

    Hi Andrew.
    We have (as do other areas probably) an army of 'jobbing' builders who work only for undeclared cash.
    I am not casting aspersions, but I would be surprised if the vast majority of these were not claiming benefits as well.
    A trip to the local Wickes of a morning would witness an army of plain white old transits in the car park. The incumbents of these vehicles with wads of cash, can be witnessed purchasing items from the store.
    I expect that they have calculated the loss of the 20% VAT into the price for the job.
    There is a massive black economy out there and the authorities don't seem to have the will (or the resources) to tackle the problem.


    And most of those white transits come from the local dids caravan sites, but then the dids are above the law, untouchable, wrong isn't it.

  • icon
    • 31 May 2019 11:35 AM

    First thing I would ask of the white van man builder
    Show me your Public Liability Insurance so I may check you have it!!
    Van disappears in a cloud of smoke!!!


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up