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


Eviction Court Delays will be huge challenge for new government

A prominent solicitors’ firm says the failure of the Renters Reform Bill to become law may have attracted headlines but the underlying problem - a court system unable to process evictions - stays the same.

A statement from the law firm, Payne Hicks Beach, says: “The government's failure to end no fault evictions is unlikely to do it any favours with younger voters and the renters community more generally - groups it probably should be looking to woo. 

“Logistically, there are well-founded objections to the proposals as originally drafted, in particular the fact that the court system is presently unable to cope with the increase in work that would flow from landlords having to have recourse to contested possession proceedings to evict their tenants. 


“The government still has not properly addressed those objections. While the renters lobby is understandably frustrated at the delay in abolishing section 21 notices, it is important not to solve one problem by creating another one. 

“However the consequence is that we are left with the law in a wholly unsatisfactory state. Renters are unhappy that they can be evicted without good reason, but on the other side of the equation, landlords have to satisfy numerous conditions before they can serve a satisfactory section 21 notice, and the large number of county court judgements dealing with how those conditions are satisfied leads to a climate of uncertainty where even landlords who have been legally advised cannot be confident that their possession claims will ultimately succeed at court.”

It is clearly impossible that the problem will be resolved before the July 4 election and whichever party forms the next government, the issue will have to be addressed if eviction powers are to be changed. 

However, Payne Hicks Beach says there is much better news regarding the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which made it into law before the end of the Parliamentary session.

The law firm says: “The Act introduces a number of welcome changes. A number of those changes will make it simpler for leaseholders to acquire the freehold, or the right to manage, or extend their leases. Historical distinctions between the treatment of leasehold houses and flats have been abolished, so that all leaseholders benefit from the same rights, which include the right to extend their lease by 990 years, as against 90 years currently for a flat, and only 50 years for a house. 

“The Act continues progress towards fairer charges to leaseholders, for example by giving them greater transparency over their service charges and expanding the scope of redress schemes.

“However the devil may be in the detail. One headline change is the abolition of marriage value, which leaseholders with leases of less than 80 years left to run no longer have to pay.  However that is only one element of the calculation of the cost of the lease extension.  

“The Act does prescribe the value of the two other critical elements to the lease extension calculation, namely the deferment rate and the capitalisation rate. The government has said that both of these will be set at market value, but what does that mean in practice? Furthermore, when will the government determine market value? Without knowing these figures it is impossible to advise clients whether they are better off seeking at least extension under the current legislation, or under the new Act (the commencement date of which is as yet unknown). 

“Leaseholders should be advised to expect the unexpected.”

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.

  • icon

    Generation Rant have the answer. Make all evictions discretionary. Little Ben has already ordered a supply of rubber stamps marked: REFUSED.😡

  • icon

    Why are those solicitors making the assumption that landlords need a reason to get their property back? Welsh Labour introduced legislation which allowed for no fault termination of tenancies. They still gave tenants more rights, but they didn't seek to end the private rental sector. If tenants gain security of tenure then that leads to a huge number of landlords not being prepared to let any more.

    It is not compulsory to be a landlord. Elderly people do not have to be at the beck and call of sometimes lazy young people. They can spend their money instead.

  • Sarah Fox-Moore

    All this means is fewer landlords expanding their portfolio, far fewer new landlords coming into the market and way more landlords selling up and getting the hell out.

  • icon

    It also means every time a tenant leaves of their own accord the landlord will immediately sell!

  • icon

    I wonder if the incoming Labour government can resist the temptation 😰😰 of banning s21 but NOT ensuring the courts work first 🥵, it would be popular 🤷‍♂️

  • icon

    Neither Labour or the Concommies has any intention to fix the court system as it very effectively delays evictions to a trickle.
    They are more likely to slow it still further.
    The system is all but a step away from unspoken‘sequestration’.

  • icon

    "It also means every time a tenant leaves of their own accord the landlord will immediately sell!"
    This is exactly right. I had every intention of doing this the last time a tenant left. As it happened I was persuaded not to because the outgoing tenant had found a new prospective tenant for me. A single mum sleeping at a friend's house desperate for her children not to have to change schools. I relented and she's a lovely tenant, as are all my tenants, and that's why I do it. I used to take old run down properties and turn them into lovely homes but it's difficult to find workmen nowadays and everything takes too long. I have never evicted a tenant, or even come close, but these properties are my life savings and I can't take the risk of a rogue tenant destroying my happiness in the future with no safety net, so sad as it may be, without Section21, property is not viable for me anymore.

  • icon

    I think there should be an easier way then going through the courts for simple cases. If a tenant doesn't pay it is a simple and easy case. Can the tenant prove they have paid, no, eviction can proceed. There should be a fast track cheap, easy and quick process for these types of cases without lawyers involved.


    Agreed John, only right and proper that we should be able to get rid of the non payers, if this were the case there would be no need for sec 21

  • icon

    Agreed John, if the tenants do not pay rent for 2 months, they should be out. However, they will not leave, S.8 will always take a long time to get to court. If the court agrees then a bailiff. This can take 8 months to 12 months, even wirh all correct documentation and no work required. No government will make it legal for tenants to leave if
    rent is unpaid for 2 months, though that is a fair policy for all concerned.


    If it was to become a criminal case, as it is theft, then the police should evict them.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up