Reform of the private rented sector has been on political parties’ agendas for the past decade. Intentions have been well-meaning, to provide tenants with a more secure home, which provides the platform for so much else in life.

There is one aspect, more than any other, however, that will determine whether reforms work well or badly – efficient access to the courts, and whilst that issue has been paved with good intentions, progress has been slow.

In the run up to the 2015 general election, the Labour Party was considering rental reform. Much of what was promised was supported by decent landlords. All that was asked for in return was court efficiency, because landlords would have to rely on the courts in the absence of s21 – no fault evictions.

However, the 2015 election was defined by unfunded spending commitments. Understandably, therefore, Labour was cautious on championing better resourcing of the courts, keen not to make an unfunded commitment. Without that commitment, however, landlord support was always going to be lukewarm.  

Fast-forward to the previous Government, it inherited a position of rental reform from the 2017-19 May administration. An essential part of the reforms was the promise of a package that balanced the needs of landlords and tenants. And an essential part of that balance, was court reform.

Progress was painfully slow, however, and landlord organisations working with backbench Conservative MPs felt it necessary to secure various amendments to the Bill, to ensure that court reform was delivered before section 21 disappeared. The previous Government also belatedly made some commitments to fund a project by the Ministry of Justice to digitalise the court process.

We therefore approach mk3 of the reforms with trepidation. Court reform is important stuff, which has been recognised and supported by other political actors. The Housing Select Committee were forthright in calling for court reform, as part of a balanced package. The Mayor of London, in previous work on tenure reform, also recognised the importance of the courts.

There are also important principles at stake. We live in a country whose citizens generally abide by the rule of law, but part-and-parcel of that contract with citizens, rich or poor, landlord or tenant, is fair access to justice. It binds our democracy.

There are also important practicalities at stake. Possession claims from submission to conclusion can take well over a year in some places. Access to the courts is important for not just private landlords, but social landlords, and tenants. I was speaking to a social landlord the other day that was saying in some London Boroughs you can wait five months for access to a bailiff. So, in their case, a badly behaving tenant was living rent free for five months, even though the court had found against them. Yet, at the same time, they had several well-behaved homeless families who could have moved into that accommodation tomorrow. Is that what fairness looks like?

It is great that the new Government is committed to digitalisation, but that won’t arrive anytime soon, and in the meantime, if our courts are to cope with more possession cases they will need more resource, and more recruitment of staff like bailiffs. I’d like to be confident that is happening, but after a decade of talk and little action I am sceptical. If I were a landlord, I would therefore be writing to my local MP asking them to raise their concerns and seeking more assurances.

• Ian Fletcher is Director of Policy at the British Property Federation *