Source · Select Committees · Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation 3
3
Accepted in Part
Paragraph: 46
We recognise that the majority of private landlords are responsible and have no desire or...
Conclusion
We recognise that the majority of private landlords are responsible and have no desire or financial incentive to evict tenants without good reason, and that for these landlords section 21 feels like an indispensable means of evicting bad tenants, but the blight of unfair eviction and insecurity of tenure experienced by too many tenants today can only be remedied by its repeal. We remain concerned, however, that the proposed sales and occupation grounds, as currently designed, could be too easily exploited by bad landlords and become a backdoor to no-fault evictions.
Government Response Summary
The government is retaining the two-month notice period and will mitigate misuse of the sales/occupation grounds by restricting landlords from remarketing/reletting within three months of using those grounds.
Paragraph Reference:
46
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government
Accepted in Part
Abolishing section 21 will increase security for tenants as landlords will always need a good reason to evict and be prepared to evidence that reason in court. However, we believe that increased security for tenants must be balanced with a landlord’s need for flexibility when they want to sell or move into a property themselves and we are committed to introducing these changes once reforms to the court system are in place. In the current system, landlords cannot use section 21 in the first six months of a tenancy. Our new restriction replicates this, but with the key distinction that landlords must have a genuine reason for the eviction. A two-month notice period (the same as section 21 currently) balances the needs of both tenants and landlords, giving tenants time to find a new home while ensuring landlords can manage their assets when they need to. While we understand that some tenants would benefit from a longer initial restriction on the use of grounds or longer notice periods, this may discourage landlords from letting their properties in the first place. Just as tenants’ circumstances can change unexpectedly, landlords may need to sell or move into their property at short notice. Inflexibility could discourage landlords and reduce overall supply to the detriment of tenants and introduce additional hurdles to a smooth-running housing market. In some circumstances, landlords may wish to sell their property directly to the tenant. To help facilitate this, we are removing the restriction on Ground 2 which currently prevents lenders from using the ground if the tenancy started prior to the mortgage. We are mitigating against misuse of the grounds by restricting landlords from remarketing or reletting the property within three months of using moving or selling grounds. We judge this will be a strong deterrent as a landlord seeking to abuse the grounds would face a significant void period between tenancies. Any evidence that a landlord has advertised their property for rent during this period will support a tenant’s challenge that the landlord did not genuinely intend to sell or move into the property. We recognise that landlord’s circumstances can change and that they may need to relet the property if, for example, the property does not sell. In our view, a three-month restriction provides the right balance between these competing factors.