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


Many renters ‘are in danger of being evicted when the current ban lifts’ - claim

The number of private tenants in England who have fallen behind on rent has doubled during the coronavirus pandemic, according to estimates from Shelter.

Polling for the housing charity estimated 226,785 could be at risk of losing their homes when the ban on evictions ends on 23 August because they are now in arrears of eight weeks or more. 

Shelter is calling on the government to take action before the ban on new evictions ends next month.


The charity found almost a third - 31% - of renters feel more depressed and anxious about their housing situation. The same proportion of renters said they are having sleepless nights.

Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter, commented: “The financial chaos of Covid-19 means that many private renters are in danger of being evicted when the current ban lifts.”

She added: “The minute the evictions ban lifts, the 230,000 already behind with their rent could be up for automatic eviction if they’ve built up eight weeks worth of arrears. And judges will be powerless to help them.

“That’s more than the entire population of Portsmouth at risk of losing their homes. And let’s not forget: this pandemic is not over.”

Neate wants judges to be given powers “to ensure that no renter is automatically evicted, and the impact of coronavirus is always considered”.

But Chris Norris, policy director for the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA), responded to Shelter’s research by pointing out that landlords have worked closely with tenants throughout the lockdown. 

“Our surveys show that the vast majority of landlords have been doing all they can to keep people in their homes,” he said.

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 only tenants in danger here are the ones that shouldn't be there, evict them then please tell us who they are so we don't get them.

  • icon

    'Neate wants judges to be given powers “to ensure that no renter is automatically evicted, and the impact of coronavirus is always considered”.'

    If a law was actually passed that this person is advocating then a tenant could say at ANY TIME that they feel affected by CoronaVirus and they get to stay in the property. The house would eventually be repossessed sold at auction. LL loses money, the rent shirking tenant goes onto a rinse repeat cycle until no more rental properties are left. Good idea from Polly Neate £150k salary from Gov/Charity resources

    Amazing isnt it Coronavirus only affects tenants not homeowners

  • icon

    Jahan says (above): "If a law was actually passed that this person is advocating then a tenant could say at ANY TIME that they feel affected by CoronaVirus and they get to stay in the property.". They would have to show proof, of course - of lost job, no other income, etc. etc.
    "Amazing isnt it Coronavirus only affects tenants not homeowners." Equally inaccurate. A huge number of homeowners are struggling to pay their mortgages, defaulting on their payments, and don't know if they will have to quit their homes. And if property prices fall, they're in negative equity and in even bigger trouble.


    significant difference and i am sure you know that

    are you a f of dt?


    Right I'm gonna try and be polite here

    David the "Amazing isnt it Coronavirus only affects tenants not homeowners." is sarcasm obviously it affects homeowners

    And no David according to her quote "and the impact of coronavirus is always considered” would give the tenants lawyer/Solicitor an angle to work on keeping the tenant in the property in court. In theory everyone in the UK has been affected by CoronaVirus either by health, economically or social interaction.


    All for the tenant and landlords get cast as the - Bad GUY. Again. Am evicting one tenant BUT only cos she is causing a v bad nuisance - all night parties-chucking used ladies used things- say no more- into next doors garden. NOT on, had words button no avail. Apart from that working with tenants like most LL do is the way.

  • icon
    • 06 July 2020 09:51 AM

    SHELTER - SCHMELTA. Rubbish.
    If Shelter tenants miss payments, they should be evicted immediately.

  • icon

    Just read a bit about this Shelter survey. They polled just over 1000 and from this had the audacity to GUESSTIMATE over 226000 private renters "were in fear of eviction". No mention of the other 4000 noted above though.

    Which planet do these wasters live on as it certainly does not appear to be this one. There is no other publicity that I have seen that there are thousands waiting to be evicted. There will no doubt be some who justly deserve to be kicked out and rightly so. Can't pay they take it away is absolutely the right solution to waster tenants.

    Just goes to show what a bunch of dishonest analysts can do by maneuvering numbers to suit the poll takers means.

  • icon

    common purpose

  • icon

    Shelter is using creative data analytics manipulation to show their organisation needs funding to support tenants and to change laws not to evict rogue tenants, but by doing so they will shoot themselves in foot.
    In a scenario that no tenants were evicted and no homelessness = no requirement for Shelter charity, shut it down.

    Landlords are also suffering due to CoVID19. Rogue tenants eviction should be a straightforward 1 week process without requiring court/judge’s precious time or involvement. Instead an online system of 1 month’s online notice with evidence of delivery, if no rent paid then online Bailiffs order can be printed to evict tenants.
    Simple: don’t pay-don’t stay.

    Laws should be simplified to save courts and taxpayers costs, by stopping rogue tenants abuse current tenant favouring laws.

  • icon

    Ensure you use S8 for the eviction were ever possible to show the government and shelter the real reason for the evictions

    • 06 July 2020 14:42 PM

    In my history all evictions have been trashing the property, unneighbourly behaviour or non payment of rent.......

    So I am clear there...!!!!!!

  • icon
    • 06 July 2020 12:37 PM

    As LL clearly what you state makes sense.
    But ALL LL must be aware Govt will NEVER make eviction easy for whatever reason.
    Why would they!?
    Govt knows that electorally LL are not a threat.
    They know that tenants hold the electoral power.
    Therefore they know hitting LL won't damage any electoral opportunities.

    Govt will make LL bear the costs of dealing with rent defaulting tenants.
    The longer they can ensure LL bear all the eviction and rent defaulting costs the better for Councils who won't be required to house until eviction by bailiffs.

    This is the simple reality of being a LL.
    If you cannot afford a rent defaulting tenant every new tenancy then you shouldn't really risk being a LL.
    Of course we all do risk everything if we are leveraged LL.
    Perhaps in light of the sudden realisation by LL of what feckless tenants can do perhaps the BTL game is not as many LL thought it was.
    Certainly no way to achieve Financial Freedom!!!
    Being a leveraged LL is for risk takers only.
    Just be aware that the eviction process is 100% in favour of tenants.
    Yes you will EVENTUALLY get rid of them.
    But you will only survive providing you have the resources to pay the mortgage for about a year and then most likely refurb costs along of course with all the associated eviction costs.
    When you add up these possibilities the BTL business model is a very shakey one.

    It is only the useless eviction process which causes this situation.
    Govt actually intends to make it even more difficult to evict...............if that were possible!!

    The CV19 crisis has just highlighted these difficulties.
    The business proposition just DOESN'T add up anymore if that business is very effectively prevented from removing rent defaulting tenants for nearly a year.

    No business would last long if for a year services were consumed and not paid for.
    This unfortunately is a LL reality as many are starting to find out!

  • icon
    • 06 July 2020 14:40 PM

    Yes, and over time, LL will find a way to increase rental prices, leading to more evictions.

    And round and round we go, with the only real loser is the tenant.

    But then again, I am happy with higher rents and I do not give a s**t how many time I have to evict, as long as I get paid.

    My business comes first, and I will protect it to the end...and I will take as many others as necessary with me if it collapses.....

    • 06 July 2020 15:28 PM

    I get what you say and in principle great.

    Unfortunately eviction has always cost me far more than potential rent received.
    So it is all very well evicting wronguns.
    Trouble is doing this will very quickly exhaust any spare funds.
    If you can't achieve RGI on the tenant or guarantor then the risk of rent default is entirely with the LL.
    For me that is simply too much risk.
    I cannot afford anymore the losses I have experienced.
    I will be outta here in about 4 years time.
    I will invest my capital into ONE house ideally a 4/5 bed and take in lodgers.
    No tenancy regulations to concern myself with.
    No S24 etc; etc

    Am already researching 4/5 bed houses.
    No Article 4; Selective Licensing or Additional licencing areas either.
    4 unrelated occupiers in my resi house means NO Mandatory HMO licence etc.
    BTL has had its day.
    Not being able to get rid of rent defaulting tenants within a reasonable time makes the BTL proposition pretty much dysfunctional.
    Which is why I will be leaving AST lettings ASAP!


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up