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


Labour MP calls for extension to evictions ban

A Labour MP has called for the ban on evictions to be extended until later in the year, as renters fear a significant increase may take place once current restrictions are lifted.

The ban on new eviction proceedings against those renting “simply must be extended”, according to London-based MP Tulip Siddiq.

She told the press: “Covid-19 is not just a health crisis. It is also an economic crisis that could soon turn into a homelessness crisis unless urgent action is taken to support those who rent.


“Many constituents have contacted me because they can’t pay their rent right now and are terrified about losing their home in the middle of this pandemic. Protections against evictions are due to expire this month, and they simply must be extended if we are going to avoid thousands of renters being unfairly kicked out of their homes.”

Siddiq added the ban’s extension must be for "at least six months". 

But the Labour MP appears to be ignoring the fact that a number of buy-to-let landlords face financial hardship because of the coronavirus crisis, especially if the existing ban of tenant evictions is extended.

Some landlords who already had possession cases for rent arrears going through the courts prior to the ban could find themselves trying to cover more than a year’s worth of rent if the courts are unable to resume existing cases from 25 June. 

The government has paused eviction proceedings until 25 June and has also temporarily extended notice periods for some tenancy types to three months. It is not yet clear what, if any, alternative measures will be put in place. 

The NRLA says that due to coronavirus, more than half - 54% - of its members have experienced some combination of rent payment problems or unanticipated periods when properties are empty.

Although buy-to-let landlords are eligible for three-month mortgage holidays, the NRLA points out that while this is helping to sustain tenancies, it means a cost further down the line.

The NRLA wants to see existing support extended to help tenants cover their costs, including the elimination of the five week waiting time for Universal Credit.

Ben Beadle, chief executive at the NRLA, commented: “A number of our members are having issues that arose pre-Covid and not able to get possession of their property. With any sort of ban - we don't see that as being a long-term solution. 

“We think a careful re-opening of evictions needs to take place that prioritises pre-Covid debt, anti-social behaviour and prioritises domestic violence.” 

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.

Poll: Do you think the existing ban on evictions will be extended?


  • Sarah Doble

    A call for a further ban is not realistic. Many of my clients have been caught by a ban which was initially meant to be solely targeted against arrears due to COVID 19, not a blanket ban that we have now all endured for 3 months. I have many cases "stuck" in a system where the arrears were in place prior to the crisis. There are cases that are nothing to do with arrears which are also trapped by an archaic rule. Due consideration needs to be given not another blanket move and also the fact that many tenants simply won't communicate with landlords or agents.


    Oh, how wrong you are - sucks to be you !

  • Daniela Provvedi

    Another MP not caring or not bothering to see the bigger picture.
    Extending the ban on evictions a further 6 months may help the tenants, but what about those LL who can't afford it?
    MP Tulip Saddiq should go back and re-think about what she's just said, as it doesn't make any blimming sense!

     G romit

    You've hit the nail on the head the average MP has no "blimming sense".


    So, the bigger picture is anything that benefits you directly ?

    Daniela Provvedi

    Oh hello Sebastian Forbes, I've noticed you've crept out from under your rock again.

  • icon

    Easy to look charitable when its not your money your spending Tulip.


    The problem with socialism is, you eventually run out of someone else’s money!

  • icon

    In that case, Tulip Saddiq, the Government should pay all rent arrears and unpaid rent due to the coronavirus to help the forgotten landlord in all of this.

  • icon

    The article states: "The Labour MP appears to be ignoring the fact that a number of buy-to-let landlords face financial hardship because of the coronavirus crisis"? But for Buy-to-Let landlords, these properties are generally their second properties (or third, fourth, etc.) in their names. So this is not what one normally calls 'hardship'. Just ask those who visit food banks, etc. what financial hardship is. Government help for those who own more than one home makes no sense at all at a time of major economic crisis.

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Many of these Landlords 'Live' off the rental income which is Taxed to death.
    The net result of their hard, worked-for income is damage and rental defaults and an unfair ( compared to other businesses ) Tax burden.
    Its not Private business ( landlords ) responsibility to house those that cannot afford to pay, - that is the state and TAX-payers responsibility. [ of which as I've said, landlords are already paying more than their fair share ]


    David Wirth.
    You do seem to have a major downer on landlords.
    Why should they be singled out for harsh treatment, when other businesses are being looked after?
    Landlords are providing a service by housing tenants, it has nothing to do with owning more than one home.
    I presume that you are a Labour voting socialist, who thinks that landlords are the Antichrist.


    There are many angles to private BTL landlords David. These people will have worked incredibly hard to save for deposits to invest in property to become self sufficient and not “live off the state” before and after retirement age, leaving more in the system for others with a greater need. The rent money “is their income”.
    Having owned rental property for over 40 years and a letting agency for 15 I have seen landlords lose money on investments, left devastated by huge bills through non payment of rent, damage done to properties where the tenants “just disappear” into the abyss to strike again with no accountability to anyone.

    There are lists of costly certification and accreditation required even before marketing the property through an agent..which costs money.

    People just assume, the rents £675 so the landlords hopping into the sunset with this. You’ll be lucky if some are taking £100 a month off that.

    I personally am all for “helping the needy, but certainly not the greedy” .. or constant free loaders!

     G romit

    David Wirth
    Well done for putting beyond all doubt that you know absolutely nothing about the property rental business or business in general.

    "Government help for those who own more than one home makes no sense at all at a time of major economic crisis." Most Landlords only have one home but have several houses which they do not occupy ever, but rent out to people who do not want to buy, cannot afford to buy/cannot get a mortgage. So you imply that the Landlord should sell these 2nd, 3rd, etc houses to relieve their financial hardship? and where precisely do you expect the displaced tenants to live?

    Letting properties is a business, and like any business has revenues (rent), and expenses interest on loans, maintenance, professional fees, insurance, etc. and wages, all of which have to be paid (OK it is possible to get mortgage payment 'holiday' but this is just a deferment and will in itself incur interest on the deferred payments). Every other business has the options to furlough staff or for the self-employed claim Government support EXCEPT Landlords. Of course, we all in this together (that's together for the payment of tax which Landlords pay more than their fair share anyway, but not together for Government assistance). So please explain how you reckon having no income is not hardship just because you are a Landlord?

    Just Mogler

    David, To some degree I agree with you but the socially unruly tenants who were due to be removed back in March by the courts have now been left to carry on their disturbing presence. Alright for you if you don't live near them I guess...Think of the neighbours who have to tolerate this...I have one. Your opinion shows empathy for those relying on charity with disregard for the people who have chosen to supply the roof over their heads. It's a commercial world out there with people who have ambition. If everybody had some we would have the level playing field you seem to seek.

  • icon
    • 04 June 2020 09:40 AM

    Here here.....
    Quite right...

  • icon

    If landlords were still able to deduct interest from profit before tax this would be less of an issue. Successive tax policy has removed risk margin from the business model. There is a limit to how much any landlord can absorb, let alone those carrying higher debt willfully or by virtue of becoming an accidental landlord.

  • icon
    • 04 June 2020 09:56 AM

    What an idiot you are.
    You must be one of those idiot socialists that believes they have the right to spend other people's money.

    Where do the likes of you get off!!??
    It matters not how many properties a LL owns or as is the case with 50% of the PRS are owned by the banks with the LL owning about a 25% share of the property value.
    If the mortgages aren't paid the LL could be bankrupted and made homeless.
    That is hardship.
    What isn't hardship is ANYONE on welfare who are considerably richer than many who bother working FULL-TIME.

    There are LL reliant on rental income for their own income as they do not qualify for UC due to having assets worth more than £16000
    Basically your comments just prove your complete ignorance to the genuine hardship that LL are suffering currently.
    Owning leveraged property doesn't make you rich.
    If rents aren't paid then very quickly hardship for the LL occurs.

    You are typical of the idiots especially Labour MPs that believe all LL have pots of money to subsidise feckless tenants.

    These tenants should have savings instead of indulging in feckless spending.

    Now idiots like you expect LL to pay for free accommodation that tenants are now having because they refuse to pay rent rather than offering to vacate.

    People like you always seem only too willing to support fecklessness rather than shining a light on feckless behaviours which lead to tenants not having the resources to meet their normal monthly domestic costs.
    Believe me if the eviction process wasn't so dysfunctional tenants would ensure they had savings knowing that if they didn't they could be very quickly booted out.

    The complete false scaremongering that is being disseminated by idiot Labour MPs that tenants face eviction very shortly is basically lying.
    If you start the eviction process with a S21 it could easily take a year to eventually evict by County Court bailiff.
    So eviction June next year!!
    Hardly an immediate eviction.

    You must be surely aware that any mortgaged LL unable to pay the monthly mortgage payments because no rent is being paid will find their properties rapidly repossessed by lenders.

    It is only the facility of mortgage deferments that has has prevented many lenders from repossessing.
    BTL loans are considered to be Commercial Loans and are UNREGULATED.
    Therefore BTL lenders have no compunction about repossessing if the LL misses 2 mortgage payments.
    You clearly know nothing about the financial costs of being a LL and if you did you would realise how stupid your comments are.
    Govt cannot prevent lenders from repossessing which is what will occur if LL are unable to pay a BTL mortgage. Such a repossession would take about 3 months for a lender and not a year that it would take for the LL.
    Resulting of course in the tenant being evicted by the lender.

    You should state the truth and not some propaganda to assuage your weird socialist views.

    But of course people like you don't want the truth to be told because it would mean admitting LL do face extreme hardship due to rent defaulting tenants no matter how many properties they own.

    The only risk a tenant faces is having to return to the parental home.
    They certainly won't face bankruptcy which can occur very quickly for a LL or at least wipe out all his capital.
    Why do you believe feckless tenants should have the ability to inflict this on their LL!?


    By and large go with everything you’ve said Paul. The “expectation” of many drives me absolutely crazy! Why not call the car dealerships and tell them what colour they want their new free car to be before popping down to pick it up!

  • Mark Wilson

    I mentioned on this site months ago that I had heard the German government were considering a similar action of banning evictions. No idea what they did.

    In the UK, if you take into account that Government would prefer a build to rent type letting market, with institutional Landlords, rather than mum and pop set ups, measures of the type suggested in the article would be easier to put into effect.

    Fair to say that the corona virus crisis has lead to problems for BTL investors that they never ever considered. The problem is amplified by the fact that many of these players have associated borrowing costs that need servicing. Borrowing by its very nature amplifies risk, which is why Joe public is advised never to borrow to buy shares. Banks lend on property but the underlying risk is with the borrower.

    The issue here is one of need and who is more deserving: Tenants need homes, even in these crazy times, whilst, on the other hand, some Landlords need money (rent) to pay the debts that facilitate market speculation.

    I am sympathetic to both, but not in equal share.

  • icon

    If tenant stops paying rent because it is not affordable due to Corvid-19 there can be no eviction as it is not allowed. The arrears continue to mount up and the landlord get's into deeper and deeper debt because of a stupid change in the law which is affecting tenants and landlords probably in equal measure.
    So if a tenant wants out due to the pandemic there is no choice if there is no income. No LL would consider them and probably the council would say that they have made themselves homeless if they stop paying rent. Catch 22 comes to mind here.
    Solution is allow evictions to proceed particularly in the case of Corvid-19 with a fast track solution. Result would be many happy landlord's and tenant's and council forced to do what they should do and that is house homeless and vulnerable tenants. Landlord's are then able to let to paying tenant and all live happily ever after.
    This however is not how life and politics and landlords/tenants work trying to solve a problem.
    For those tenants who just do not want to pay they should get their just deserts and pretty damn quick too.

    Dawn Wellam

    Totally agree with you Retired agent.My tenant after 15 months just sent a short email to my letting agents satiating " due to covid 19" I will not be able to pay rent today.In the future I will pay.Then he didn't even state why .I was willing to reduce the rent or set up a plan as I'm a renter in Rome myself.He blanked the agents asking not to be harrased or disturbed.Only postal notification.After 6 weeks of no communication wrote a letter saying he should be able to pay in July but not June so we will be 3 months in arrears .His on a periodic tenancy for which has 5 month left.He is also claiming mental health issues.I can honestly say that I have been throughout the tenancy a decent landlord. Renting in Rome I have to pay for everything including the service charges and the checks .Unfortunately I now have to resort to legal measures.

  • icon

    Most renters are find it a excuses just like mine, also doesnt that mean i cant evict my tenants in next 3 to 4 months because I actually want to sell my property? Can someone pleaee advise me thanks

  • icon

    So the poll said, "Do you think the existing ban on evictions will be extended?" and the 62% (aka fools) who said 'no' are still struggling to accept the folly of their investment decision ?

    EDIT: it's now 63% so some idiot voted 'no' without paying due regard to the news ?.. yes - idiot !

  • icon

    So Ms Tulip Siddiq M.P. wants to extend ban on evictions to allow them to continue living free while owing me thousands & thousands of pounds. They are all so high & mighty with no input whatsoever taking delight in driving us out. How much more do they want for free?. I think they are in for a shock down the line when they find they can no longer live on our money, (some tulip).

  • Bob wellamd

    Until this crazy law is gone I'm not renting my place out to anybody. My losses (after tax) will be marginal compared to the impact of another homeless person. We are governed by the truly stupid on the left and the right who never follow the consequences of their actions to help the loudest shouters to their logical conclusions.
    Study more that PPE you turnips.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up