Keir Starmer built his campaign on a pledge to move beyond “gestures and gimmicks,” a promise that resonated strongly with many. At Baclands, we recognize the complexities and challenges facing both landlords and tenants in the UK rental market. Today, our focus is on two key provisions of the Housing Act 1988: Section 8 and Section 21 evictions. These have been at the center of heated debate for the past five years, yet many of the proposed solutions fail to address the real issues.
Section 21 allows landlords to regain possession of their property without providing a reason, provided they follow the proper legal process. Many landlords prefer this no-fault eviction route because it ensures they can reclaim their property without the uncertainty of legal disputes. However, critics argue that it leaves tenants vulnerable, even if they have adhered to their rental agreements. Despite these concerns, actual eviction numbers remain low. In 2023, just 0.058% of the 4.6 million rental households—approximately 2,682—were evicted under Section 21.
By contrast, Section 8 allows landlords to evict tenants who have breached their tenancy agreement, such as failing to pay rent. This process, however, requires landlords to go to court and prove the breach, which can be both time-consuming and uncertain. Many landlords opt for Section 21 instead because it offers a more straightforward and predictable outcome, avoiding the legal delays and challenges associated with Section 8. In fact, a significant portion of Section 21 evictions are initiated due to tenancy breaches. As one of our clients put it, “None of the Section 21 evictions I have made have been no fault; in fact, they have all been for non-payment of rent.” This underscores how landlords rely on Section 21 to ensure a timely resolution to tenancy issues.
Local council policies further complicate the eviction process. Some landlords argue that councils contribute to the problem by advising tenants to remain in their rental property until they are forcibly removed by bailiffs. Under current policy, tenants who leave before this stage risk being classified as “deliberately homeless” and may not qualify for the same level of support. This approach can prolong the eviction process unnecessarily, placing additional strain on both tenants and landlords. A more practical solution would be for councils to officially recognize tenants as homeless upon receiving an eviction notice, allowing them to access support services sooner and reducing the burden on landlords.
At the core of this issue is the inefficiency of the court system, which affects both landlords and tenants. Renting is fundamentally a contract: tenants pay rent and maintain the property, while landlords provide a habitable home and respect the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. Disruptions to this agreement must be resolved through enforcement, but the legal system remains slow and backlogged. Whether in housing, planning, or social care, delays in the courts have hindered progress across multiple sectors.
Several proposals have been put forward to address these inefficiencies. One suggestion is the creation of specialized housing courts to speed up eviction proceedings. These courts would handle housing-related disputes exclusively, ensuring judges with relevant expertise can resolve cases more efficiently. However, given the relatively low rate of evictions, it raises questions about whether dedicating resources to such courts would be justified, especially when other sectors also require urgent judicial reform.
Another potential solution is an online dispute resolution system that would reduce court congestion and accelerate case resolution. Landlords and tenants could submit evidence and engage with arbitrators via a secure digital platform, streamlining the process and making it more accessible.
Mandatory mediation before court proceedings could also help resolve disputes before they escalate to formal eviction. This approach would involve professional mediators working with both parties to reach an agreement, offering a structured, independent method of resolution that could benefit both landlords and tenants.
Deposit protection schemes provide a useful model for balancing tenant and landlord interests without overwhelming the courts. Since 2007, landlords have been legally required to place tenant deposits in government-backed protection schemes within 30 days of receiving them. These schemes ensure that deposits are safeguarded and can only be accessed under specific conditions.
Clear guidelines govern these schemes, ensuring that both parties understand their rights and responsibilities. When disputes arise, tenants and landlords can use the scheme’s free, independent dispute resolution service instead of going to court. Tenants are assured that their deposits are protected and will be returned fairly, while landlords retain the right to claim for damages or unpaid rent based on an impartial assessment. This structure fosters trust and cooperation within the rental market.
Despite the intensity of the debate, actual eviction rates remain low. In 2023, just 0.058% of rental households faced eviction. This raises important questions about whether the perceived risk of eviction among tenants aligns with reality. While concerns over eviction are understandable, the data suggests that the likelihood of it happening is far lower than commonly assumed.
At Baclands, we see the ongoing discussions around Section 8 and Section 21 as reflective of broader concerns about fairness, efficiency, and the balance of rights between landlords and tenants. While reforms that strengthen Section 8 and introduce compensation for no-fault evictions could be potential compromises, the most pressing issue remains the inefficiency of the court system—an issue that has plagued the UK for years.
For more insights into the rental market and practical guidance on navigating these challenges, stay connected with Baclands. We’re here to help you make sense of it all.
