Renter’s Reform and the Queen’s Speech
The Queen confirms the Government’s commitment to Renters’ Reform
The Queen’s Speech on 11 May which opened the new parliamentary term, confirmed that the Government will end the infamous s.21 (no fault) ground for possession.
The Government first announced these plans in 2019, but then cited the pandemic as a reason for delay, even though private renters have been at increased risk of eviction due to Covid-related loss of income leading to rent arrears outside their control.
We have now learnt that there will be a Government White Paper (consultation) before the Renters’ Reform bill is drafted. This could be a real opportunity for Advice for Renters, and the other organisations forming the Renters’ Reform Coalition to put forward ideas that could really improve the lives of renters. The first step has been taken, with a letter from the Coalition to the Housing Minister, Robert Jenrick, MP.
If s.21 is abolished, does this really mean that renters will have full security of tenure and be able to exercise their tenancy rights without fear of eviction? This depends on what other grounds landlords have for claiming possession. We accept, of course, that landlords should be able to evict tenants when they are in serious breach of their tenancy agreement. If they don’t treat the property with respect, for example, or make life unbearable for their neighbours because of their anti-social behaviour. But landlords are now lobbying hard for additional ‘no fault’ grounds such as that the landlord wishes to sell the property.
Our argument is that, if the landlord is running a business, he should sell it with the tenant in situ. That means potential buyer landlords have a rental income from day 1, instead of first having to advertise the property.
We will also argue strongly that all grounds for possession should be discretionary. This means that the court can hear both sides or the argument – why the landlord needs the tenant to leave; and why the tenant believes they should be allowed to remain, such as disruption to their
children’s education – and then make a decision based on the merits of the arguments. After all, there cannot be any other decisions in the civil courts as draconian as depriving someone of their home. The court must have the freedom to decide on the basis of fairness.