A charity is suggesting that if only the government got on with abolishing S21 eviction powers, homelessness would be eased.
Crisis - which has made this assertion in the past - says new figures show that 8,747 people in England and Wales were served with a Section 21 eviction notice in the third quarter of this year – which is a 32 per cent increase on this time last year.
The charity says the statistics, from the Ministry of Justice, also show a 13 per cent increase in S21 eviction notices over three months, and a 31 per cent rise in actual carried out by bailiffs for Section 21s.
The number of overall eviction notices served have increased across all regions. In London alone, 8,014 eviction notices were served which is an increase of 35 per cent from this time last year, claims Crisis.
The charity is also complaining that although the government is abolishing S21 via the Renters Reform Bill, this will only happen after reform of eviction court processes - which it claims could take years.
Matt Downie, Crisis chief executive, says: “Yet again, we see evidence of the insurmountable pressures placed on renters because of soaring rents and the cost of living crisis.
“With each eviction notice served comes the stress of finding somewhere else to live. In many cases, there are simply no affordable homes available.
“While the Westminster Government reaffirmed its commitment to scrap no fault evictions in the King’s Speech earlier this week, we are seriously concerned that these won’t be abolished fully until reforms to the court system take place, which may take years.
“Tenants must not be punished because the courts aren’t functioning properly. The Government must give struggling renters the protections they need to ensure more and more people aren’t pushed into homelessness.
“Ahead of the Autumn Statement, we urgently need the Westminster Government to invest in housing benefit so that people across Great Britain can afford even the cheapest of rents. On top of this, it’s vital they set out a plan to deliver the social homes we so desperately need.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
So he wants landkords to be punished instead.
I can't see how anyone thinks abolishing Section 21 will prevent a single eviction.
Professional landlords very rarely evict good tenants. Just about the only time would be if they wanted to retire, had to do a major refurb to remain compliant or they died.
Temporary landlords who rent their houses out while they work elsewhere are a slightly different matter but the tenant would have known about that in advance.
Abolishing Section 21 will cause a significant number of evictions in the short term as landlords decide to sell up. It must be remembered the average age of landlords is very late 50s. A lot are already well over retirement age. While they may have planned to stick with the PRS in the format they were familiar with it's questionable if the are willing to try it without Section 21.
Long-term if there are fewer rentals there should be fewer evictions in theory. However, those evictions will mainly be fault based or for the legitimate reasons such as wanting to sell or move into the property yourself. Why else would a landlord evict anyone so how is abolishing Section 21 going to help anyone?
Crisis are contributing to the Crisis just add Shelter and you are getting the real picture.
The Article once again is presenting us and the Nation with the Evidence that Removing Section 21 has caused this huge increase in the number of evictions and homelessness.
Otherwise explain the reason for the sudden jump they didn’t offer any because they couldn’t, up 35% in a year indeed because of S.21 you say you idiots.
Section 21 has been with us for decades how can you now say S.21 caused all those evictions only this year.
Come on now how many times do we have to keep repeating ourselves and you presenting cast iron evidence that the threat of Removed of Section 21 is the main contributing factor of this sudden rise, are you thick between the ears or something.
Removing S21 means LL’s selling up mainly to owner occupiers leaving a
tenant profile who are unable to secure a mortgage. They will be forced into paying the most in whatever’s left over.
Crisis has created a crisis and Shelter doesn’t provide shelter!
Absolutely. Crisis don't know what they are talking about. They need homeless people to boost their membership numbers to give them a louder voice. They know about being homeless but they don't know about actually housing people.
The only way to reduce homelessness is to make more housing available. Removing S21 is like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic - all it means is different people will be homeless!
And stopping the boat folk. Would help as well.
Reverse section 24 would be a far bigger help and reinstate 10% wear and tear allowances would have a huge effect to stop evictions
Apparently Section 21 increases homelessness because landlords evict tenants for no reason at all, then they take their empty property and……..well they let it to someone else (doesn’t count, ignore that), or move in a family member (they don’t need homes do they?). Or sell it because the abolition of section 21 means they want to get back their investment whilst they still can (what a cheek!) Join the dots!
Hey Matt, what you advocate would exponentially increase homelessness, my contact details in my bio if I can be of any help giving you a crash course in how the PRS actually works.
Is there a link between producing ridiculous statements and the amount of grants from government via us tax payers? Just wondering if the more rubbish spouted by these idiots results in them getting more money?
Until recently i used to support Crisis because they seemed sensible and did not attack landlords.
Now they have gone over to the Dark Side and are twinned with Shelter!
If tenants left when they were asked to, then no section 21 would be used. So every time section 21 is used a tenant refused to leave.
Not sure that's quite accurate.
Depends if everyone is talking about Step 1 (issuing the Section 21 notice) or Step 2 (applying to the Court for an eviction order).
Section 21 notices can be issued for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily with the intention of making someone homeless. Some Landlords routinely issue them to students two months before the end of their fixed tenancy just to remind them of the end of tenancy date, which is often several weeks after the end of the university term. Very few of those would ever progress to Step two as the tenant had no intention of remaining in the house.
Some S21 notices are issued as a warning shot for low level breach of tenancy. The hope is the existence of the notice will be enough to make the tenant change their behaviour and be able to remain in the property. Some are issued to help the tenant get their finances under control and be able to pay their rent more consistently. Low priority creditors tend to be very demanding but back off if a threat of eviction is presented. It's much easier for them to eventually get their money if the person isn't homeless.
A few will be because the landlord hasn't regularly increased rent and is too embarrassed to ask for a hefty enough increase to bring the property anywhere close to market rent. Either way the tenant is going to be upset. Having a proper conversation and allowing time for the initial shock to wear off would retain some of those tenancies.
It would be useful to know how we are going to manage those scenarios without Section 21 notices.
Please login to comment