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

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Section 21 notice handed out every seven minutes - claim

Campaigning charity Shelter claims that a private renter in England is handed a Section 21  eviction every seven minutes. 

In a new statement on the issue, the charity claims almost 230,000 private tenants have been served with a S21 since the government first committed to scrap this form of eviction in April 2019. 

It adds that this is despite an eviction ban being in place for 14 months of this three-year period due to the pandemic.  

Advertisement

Shelter cites new figures from the charity’s YouGov poll reveal a quarter of all private renters have had three or more private rented homes in the last five years. 

The figure for renting families with children is one in five. 

“Based on these findings and what it sees in its frontline services, Shelter is concerned about the destabilising impact on children of constantly having to move” the charity states.

It goes on to claim that losing a private tenancy is the second biggest cause of homelessness in England, while the growing cost of living crisis “could push even more private renters to the brink.” 

In the Queen’s Speech next month, Shelter says the government should honour its pledge to deliver a Renters’ Reform Bill this year to make private renting fairer and safer for all. 

“The bill must include banning Section 21 no-fault evictions to give renters greater security in their homes” Shelter demands.

 

The charity’s chief executive Polly Neate states: “It’s appalling that every seven minutes another private renter is slapped with a no-fault eviction notice despite the government promising to scrap these grossly unfair evictions three years ago. It’s no wonder many renters feel forgotten.

“Millions of private renters are living in limbo – never truly able to settle - in case their landlord kicks them out on a whim. It’s a well-founded fear as our frontline services support renters all the time who are scrambling to find a home after being told to up sticks with just two months’ notice.  

“With inflation and bills skyrocketing, renters desperately need a secure home as many will struggle to stump up the costs of having to move unexpectedly. To give private renters stability during a time of deep uncertainty, the government must introduce a Renters’ Reform Bill that bans no-fault evictions this year. Anything less would be a kick in the teeth for England’s 11 million private renters.” 

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.

  • George Dawes

    Wonder how much the directors at shelter are paid

    icon

    6 figures, plus perks and a bumping up of their status, leading to opportunities in media, speaking etc. Then they get to tell everyone how noble and virtuous they are and maybe even end up with a medal from the Queen.

    All while making little to no difference whatsoever.

    Classic charity / non profit stuff.

     
    icon

    £122,500 as of 2017. She has the easiest job in the world reciting the same lines day in day out: families, homeless, homelessness, ban, Section 21, children, Christmas, struggle, struggling, vulnerable, mould, asthma, landlords, rent freeze bla bla bla.

    How many BTL's does she own? None no doubt on her fat salary. How many people doe shelter house? None? How many are they making homeless with all their ridiculous demands?

     
     G romit

    The Director and senior managers pay themselves c.£1m pa in total. And about 60% of Shelters income is paid out in salaries.

    BIG CHARITIES = BIG BUSINESS = CORPORATE GREED!

     
    icon

    Same as all charities, management skim off most of the money in inflated wages and perks

     
  • icon

    Can someone remind Shelter that these are private, bilateral agreements and that landlords have a right to rent to whomever they like. Landlords don't tend to use an S21 without a good reason and maybe Shelter should be asking why tenants don't look after the property they're renting or pay the rent on time.

    icon

    Generation Rent's Dan Wilson-Craw was on LBC yesterday being, knowingly or otherwise, a communist - saying the cost of living has increased and LLs should share in the pain of Covid! What?? We not all living in some commune, Dan! It's not our job to bail either Govt. or the dregs of society out when the proverbial hits the fan!

     
  • icon

    Without Section 21 how are people going to qualify for Social Housing?
    Don't they have to be homeless through no fault of their own for the Local Authority to have a duty to help them?
    What happens if they decide to have multiple children after moving into an HMO? Does the landlord get fined for allowing overcrowding and breaching their licensing conditions?

    icon

    The Government don't want people applying for social housing. They want the PRS to make up their shortfall while taxing it high heaven.

     
    icon

    Actually and bizarrely, no. I had a couple in a very small studio and they had 2 kids in the 4 years they were there. You couldn’t actually move in there and after checking with B(r)ent Council, they said it was ok, the Landlord was under no threat of law breaking.

     
    icon

    @ Nick Duncan.

    Yes. I have a property with a long term tenant. When she moved in she had 3 kids and along the way has managed to produce a further 3. The Council introduced Selective Licensing and during the application process and inspection the council bod told me that it was OK for her to live there currently but as the kids got older they'd have too many 'points' and would have to move on. A couple of months before the oldest child reached an age where the points would tip the balance I contacted the Council and asked if they wanted me to serve S21 then or wait till he'd actually hit his birthday. They completely denied telling me that I'd have to evict and as the family had moved in with a low enough score they could live there for ever as far as the Council was concerned.

     
    icon

    I too thought this might be the ‘silver-lining’. However, it would appear that although the adult has made themselves intentionally homeless through, for example, non-payment of rent, it would not be their children’s fault and therefore the Local Authority would be housing the children and, by default, their parents too.

     
    icon

    Ending section 21 wont effect any landlord one bit, loads of get out clauses and non payment can still be used ie a section 8, plus selling, moving back in or renting to a relative

     
  • icon

    Unless you're looking at the S21 data in the context of why these evictions took place and the circumstances around them, the numbers are pretty much irrelevent.

  • icon

    Sick and tired of hearing the same old rubbish. A large percentage of tenants don’t look after properties, others don’t pay the rent and often both situations occur. We had a tenant that wanted a longer 2 yr contract we agreed to this. They trashed the flat and we did not renew at the end of the 2 year period. They refused to move out in Feb 2020. We served notice. Covid happened and we only just got them out this month over 2 years after they were due to move. It’s cost us £,000s in legal fees with 3 court visits, tenants required to pay costs which equate to less than half the court fees, NOT true cost and only ordered to pay us £10 a month. We have a refurbishment bill golf just over £3k. They didn’t even bother to clean the flat when they left (evicted) which cost and other another £400. Tenants are now disputing the non return of their deposit saying they would be happy to pay £300!
    Tennant reform is purely one sided it does not protect the landlord only the rights of the tenant. The only way I see around this is that tenants are forced to pay for an insurance policy that 100% reimburses the landlord for all damage caused irrespective of how minor or major the damage is, that immediately pays out if the tenant overstays their welcome, covers all legal fees, lost rent and insurers should apply a hearty excess to this policy to discourage them. Also tenant deposits should be higher, in most cases you’d need to put down a bigger deposit to rent a £25k car than a £500k property. Alternatively the Gov could fix the problem by building affordable housing and fixing the planning system but don’t get me started on that!

    icon

    The protection that bad tenants get after not paying their agreed rent, trashing a property and abusive behaviour to landlord and neighbours is astonishing. Shelter seem to take the view, that a tenant should be allowed to stay in a property irrespective of their actions.

    This lack of protection for landlords is the reason for the shortage of properties. Landlords are now being very careful who they rent to for good reason. In turn this means only the tenants with the best credit history and references will get a chance of getting anything. The ‘vulnerable’ renters that Shelter are so worried about end up being the hardest hit because nobody except the rogue landlords will take that risk.

    I just wish this was better understood beyond the landlord community. Because blaming us for the problem they created isn’t helping anyone except those that profit from crisis in the form of donations.

     
  • icon

    Interestingly, all of those people who have their tenancy ended by a 21 'No fault' eviction notice as the LL has given up on the rent arrears, or they are causing ASB, but as is usual no one wants to say anything so the LL has no evidence / proof against them will all have to go on a section 8 thus, making themselves ' intentionally homeless' wont be housed by any RSL....interestingly times ahead....Shelter and others like them could maybe start funding some acyual shelter for these people as currently they provide none just sit there criticising those that do!

    icon

    Unfortunately (if they have children), they *will* be rehoused, for it is deemed not to be the fault of the child(ren) of the intentional homelessness and, by proxy, their useless non-paying/ASB parents are rehoused too, so not quite what we'd hoped. The childless ones will hopefully be out on their ear, though.

     
  • icon

    “ Shelter is concerned about the destabilising impact on children of constantly having to move”
    There is a small minority of bad landlords out there, but I can say with certainty - any family that finds they are being consistently being evicted - they are the problem not the landlords.

    I’d also add, landlords do not “kick tenants out on a whim” - what a ridiculous statement. Shelter really does seem to live on a different planet with some of the crazy accusations they make.

    icon

    You beat me to it on your comment. “whim”, a totally ridiculous accusation. No good landlord kicks out rent paying tenants in a whim. Shelter is a highly dubious company, it presents itself as a people divider

     
    icon

    Absolutely Steve

    "Shelter cites new figures from the charity’s YouGov poll reveal a quarter of all private renters have had three or more private rented homes in the last five years."

    I think we all know what that is actually telling us and it's not much to do with the landlords.

     
  • icon

    Shelter has no mandate to comment on Let Housing they don’t supply any, why on earth were they invited to Parliament Select Committee to advise on Housing Policy. There maybe a rush on S.21 to get out thanks to Shelter and the likes, do they think getting rid of LL’s making less property available is going to solve the Homeless.

  •  G romit

    Of course, Shelters campaigning to scrap Sec.21 so making it far more difficult to evict hasn't led to more Landlords to exitting the PRS and ISSUING SEC.21's IN ORDER TO SELL!!!!!

    icon

    That's what Shelter want. Less homes to rent so their Corporate buddies (L&G) will do very well with their B2R business.

     
  • icon

    I am in the process of re-letting a house the tenant has handed notice in after 2 years there. I have had over 60 applications, at least 6 of the viable ones are moving because their landlord is selling up. This is the sort of evidence the committees need to be looking at!

  • icon

    Shelter cites new figures from the charity’s YouGov poll reveal a quarter of all private renters have had three or more private rented homes in the last five years.

    What has the above statement got to do with Section 21? It doesn't say how many of them have done so from choice. It's very easy to make statistics imply whatever you want.
    Moving 3 times in 5 years would be perfectly normal at certain stages in someone's life.
    Between the ages of 16 and 21 I moved 3 times. Between the ages of 22 and 27 I moved 5 times. This was all from choice and changing circumstances. I've never been evicted.

    These days it's perfectly reasonable to assume someone will move into a PRS student house in their second year at university, then a different size student house for their final year at university, then move to a different city for their Masters, PhD or first job and move into an HMO, then meet a partner and rent a self contained flat, then upgrade into a house or better flat if the relationship goes well. All of it from choice and life's natural progression but it certainly can be spun to imply a lack of security if that's how Shelter choose to interpret the data.

  • icon

    Over the last year I have had to serve 4 Section 21 notices where landlords have had enough and are selling up. Surely as Emily Simmons has said this is where the Government, Shelter and other tenant to gooders need to be looking as if they continue to penalise decent landlords they are going to lose more and more from the PRS.

     G romit

    ....and the onky Landlords that will be left will ve the rogue Landlords who dodge paying tax, ignore regulations and don't give a flying f**k about their tenants.

    Perhaps Shelter, Generation Rent, Acorn et al. could kindly please confirm this so we all know what the real agenda is?

     
  • Matthew Payne

    That only represents 1.7% of tenancies per annum, suggesting quite a bit of stability exists for 10.8m of those tenants.

  • icon

    Long may Shelter continue their ridiculous, damaging campaign, pushing out landlords and allowing me to increase rent beyond my wildest dreams.

  • icon

    They clearly see the PRS as an extension of social housing…. WE ARE NOT. If they keep this up then there will be no PRS and a sea of homeless people looking to the government for help.

    icon

    And I for one will be on a beach somewhere sunny (spending my UK-earned money in a place that treats me better) chuckling away to myself, having sold up when that happens.

     
  • David Saunders

    I'm old enough to have been around in the 1970s when lifetime tenancies plus ability to hand down to next generation along with rent controls were imposed on the then landlords, which reduced value of their properties by 50% or more. Hence when then Tory minister James Brokenshire announced in 2019 government's intention to outlaw no fault evictions, I, like many landlords who had never before issued or needed to issue section 21s, reluctantly issued them to my/their tenants, regardless the fact all of them paid their rent regular and kept the flats clean and tidy. The threat of lifetime sitting tenants and rent controls resulting in property value plummeting is/was a risk many landlords will consider not worth taking.

  • icon

    An interesting statistic would be the number of tenants who have had multiple S21 evictions. Come on Shelter let us have the figures.

    icon

    Another interesting statistic would be how many Section 21 notices proceed to become Section 21 evictions.
    A Section 21 notice is only the first step towards an eviction and can actually be an incredibly helpful piece of paper for a tenant to have. If waved in front of other creditors it can give tenants sufficient breathing space to get their finances back on track. Creditors all know rent is a priority payment and no one wants to be trying to track down a homeless person for payment.

     
    icon

    And if we keep an eye on by how much s.8 Court Hearings increase (after the abolition of s.21), we can then prove all those old s.21 Notices were indeed for rent arrears/damage/ASB rather than, as is currently claimed 'no fault'.

     
  • icon

    When is this nonsense going to stop? Whose eyes do they think they are pulling wool over?

    Shelter have regularly bent and even invented figures based on the most spurious of claims. Even if these figures were true, WHY was the S21 being issued? They don’t seem keen to say. Was the landlord selling (probably because Shelter have spent the last 20 years yelling at him to do just that?!). What had the tenants done to cause this? How many of those tenants had asked for a S21 to assist their circumstances? (I get this request fairly often). And given the long length of average tenancies in this country at over 4 years and the high level of tenant satisfaction, these figures presumably apply to some individual or difficult circumstances, not the norm. When Polly says ‘millions of renters are living in fear’, are they?? Can we see the evidence? And if she has any real evidence, then presumably she can tell us the exact numbers?

    Or, here’s a thought - why don’t Shelter alleviate this, as they easily can, by spending some of their greed-driven, bloated, corpulant (have I missed anything they call us?) £72m a year of income on actually offering these people secure homes with secure tenancies? Surely THAT would solve the problem they are so desperate to see ended?

  • icon

    The number of mortgages in the uk in arrears is about the same figure. I don’t see shelter demonise the banks.
    The usual one sided crap from shelter the charity (business) that houses no one.

    icon

    That's a good point...if 'shelter' is their genuine concern, surely this extends beyond occupiers of the private rental sector??

     
  • icon

    Headline grabbing once again with no context. Every seven minutes equates to 75,000 a year out of 11m private renters. Ie .67% of tenancy’s. Put another way 99.32% of private renters didn’t receive a no fault eviction in the last 12 months!!

    icon

    Oh and that’s assuming all these evictions were “no fault” which I seriously doubt!

     
  • icon

    The main issue for Shelter that they'll never admit to, is that they thrive on misery. The more there is of it, the better for them! So naturally they're going to big up everything with emotive language such as "no fault eviction", "kicking them out on a whim". Perversely, if there were no issues in the PRS, there would be no reason for the existence of Shelter, together with the 6 figure salaries and hobnobbing with the sycophantic politicians and right-on big business sponsors.

    icon

    Exactly GD, exactly!

     
  • icon

    As is normal with these so called campaigning charities.
    "There are lies, damm lies, and statistics" Mark Twain.
    All used to create justification for their existence.

  • icon

    The rise in S21 notices being issued is a direct response to the threat of removing that option to Landlords.

    I’ve had to do this to protect my position in cases where there’s no rent arrears but the tenant has breached the contract in other ways that are arguable by tenants/judges and burden of proof is on me.

    Other cases are in arrears so when I’m ready they’ll go via S8.

  • icon

    As said previously. The report says nothing about why the S21 notices were issued. Without knowing why they have been issued, how can anyone improve the situation?

  • icon

    As is normal with these so called campaigning charities.
    "There are lies, damm lies, and statistics" Mark Twain.
    All used to create justification for their existence.

  • icon

    A Section 21 notice is very different to a Section 21 eviction.
    The notice is the first step of a multi step process that the landlord can choose not to proceed with at any point.
    The notice may just be a warning shot and can be very effective in its own right with no need to go any further along the eviction path.
    In my many years as a landlord I've issued a total of 5 Section 21 notices, 4 of them to the same person. In his case mainly because of errors in his Housing Benefit or Universal Credit claims. Each time the notice gave him the impetus to engage with his situation for a few days and get his finances under better control. Having the Section 21 notice meant Benefit and Housing officials gave him proper attention and other creditors backed off for a while. At one point he owed me £1800. By the time he left of his own accord he had cleared the arrears totally. All credit to him. It was a long hard journey with multiple job losses and depression.

    The other Section 21 notice was to someone in an HMO who constantly forgot to lock the front door both when leaving to go to work in her day job or when coming home from a late night bar job. This caused huge stress and anxiety to the rest of the household but wouldn't be covered by Section 8. I had to be seen by the other tenants to do what I realistically could. Written requests to remember to lock the door had failed numerous times so the only option was a Section 21 notice.

  • icon

    Shelter & Co are causing a lot of trouble at Mill.

    icon

    That is the raison d'être of Shelter for it is not there to provide shelter for anyone.

     
  • icon

    There’s a lot I could say but it’s already been said by others.
    But what I will say is
    NO LANDLORD INCLUDING A BAD LANDLORD WOULD EVER EVICT A GOOD TENANT. Because that’s what we all want isn’t it?

  • icon

    Dominic is right they don’t give a fair view of the minute percentage of millions of Private Landlords out there. It only takes one Rackman and they brand us all rogue’s.

  • icon

    In the past 10 years I have had my tenancy not renewed X3 times when the landlord sells the house. First time was after four months. Second a year. Third time after 5 years but we have a baby. The time, stress and expense every time is heartbreaking for long term renters. What do you good landlords propose to do about this huge gap in long term rental security that tenants need ?

    icon

    There is a problem here, I've only ever evicted non payers, but come 2028 when it becomes illegal to rent a property under an EPC 'C' it could well be that I will be forced to evict all my tenants good and bad ones, you can thank the government for that.

     
    icon

    Brian, It seems, from reading articles like these, a lot of landlords are selling their properties and few are investing in more. So the shortage in available rental properties is getting smaller while the population is growing. The reason for the selling seems to be due to the growing policies against landlords. So the answer, Brian, is not what landlords can do, but what can be done to encourage landlord investment? With more investment, more properties, more choice for tenants and cheaper rents due to more competition.

    So the focus needs to be on the government, not landlords.

     
  • icon

    Brian
    Not long ago, their was a surplus of social housing. My average rental time was 2 years for the last 30. Tenants could pick and choose. Mass immigration has swallowed up all of the surplus and more. You should apply for social housing, although tenants are clamouring to leave social housing.

  • icon

    Brain, while I have the greatest sympathy with your situation it not the remit of Private Landlord to compulsory provide anyone with Social Housing. I used to be a Private Renter too no one gave me anything. I had to work, save and Plan for my future in more difficult times, no offence.

  • icon

    Brian,

    It is generally said that the worst thing a landlord can do is sell, because they then lose the income from that property. The decision to sell is largely driven by government policy and taxation, or because the landlord needs the money out to pay for repairs at another property or some other crisis. We can see that EPC C is going to have this effect. If a property doesn't stack up financially then it has to be sold.

    A landlord who is struggling financially will be unable to afford to maintain their properties. I just had to pay out £5000 for roof repairs and £3200 for new fences. The government gives no assistance to landlords and now doesn't even allow mortgage interest payments to be treated as a business expense.

    So if the government improved things for landlords (less unfair taxation, less regulation etc) then they would be less likely to sell, there would be more rental properties, more people would be investing, and things would also be better for tenants.

    I should also say the time, stress and expense of being a landlord can be horrendous, especially if you are unlucky enough to have any bad tenants.

  • icon

    My goodness after all the clammer to get rid of it someone now wants to tell me it will make no difference, in that case why get rid of it.
    Of Course it will make a difference and the potential to collapse the letting market and cause a recession, most likely to happen anyway.
    Just another attack on private Landlords to go with all the other requirements plus outrageous one sided licensing
    Schemes costing tens of thousands for may LL’s, add double SDLT. Deposits disaster Schemes, Removal of 10% west & tear, Section 24, Right 2 Rent,
    Shelters How 2 Rent changed about 13 times, Accreditation Schemes, etc. It makes no difference to me what they do I am held to ransom and no options available, if I sell 28% Capital gains on Inflation which is far worse for me because of being long term LL. Then at my age taking into account the hardship of past career they won’t have too long to wait for another 40% Inheritance Tax on the Balance. What’s the point of it all so sorry for ever being a Landlord and the thousands I put a roof over their heads during 43 years, then some one wants to tell me a major adverse shift / change in policy makes no difference. Also I wonder how many HMO licensees he has got, has he got any or he wouldn’t be talking rubbish.

    icon

    Isn't it strange that when it comes to another of life's essentials: food, we love the idea of getting AWAY from the corporates (supermarkets) and actively try to support small, local, 'grassroots' operators that sell their homegrown goods at farmers style markets. But with rented property, local smalltime landlords are vilified in favour of corporates that will not, ultimately, make the market any better. Nobody thinks the slightly more expensive, organically-fed, free-range eggs are the seller being a greedy parasite, do they...?!

     
icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up