Hundreds of Bristolians face landlords with an ultimate legal power. But a rebellion is growing
A fightback is brewing against a piece of legislation that epitomises the difficulties of having a secure home.
Illustration: Marissa Malik
When Chrissy got out of hospital following an episode of mental ill health brought about by a high-stress job, her landlady told her that she didn’t respect people not in full-time work. She was given an ultimatum: find a full-time job within a few months, or be kicked out.
This was the beginning of Chrissy’s (not her real name) ordeal that revealed the clear imbalance of power between tenants and landlords, and one law in particular that leaves tenants under constant threat of eviction.
After looking at 15 properties and being turned down each time for not earning enough, she found a place in Southville. Most of her new flatmates were crammed two to a room and many were working nights. Chrissy wasn’t able to get the peace and quiet she needed. After sticking it out for a year and a half, she suffered another downturn in her health.
She decided to look for another place. One looked promising, but after finding out that the new landlord wouldn’t provide a contract, she backed out. Her existing landlord, who was aware she was looking for a new place, said a new tenant had placed a holding deposit on her room.
Just after Christmas, like hundreds of Bristolians every year, Chrissy found a ‘section 21’ eviction notice at her door: the notorious legislation that allows landlords to rapidly evict tenants without giving a reason. She was ordered to get out of the property within two months.
Facing the ordeal of finding yet another place, Chrissy took a walk to clear her head. Stepping out into the road in a flood of tears she was struck down by a car. Unable to walk, she asked the landlord for an extension on her eviction date. No such luck.
Then, in an act of dubious legality, the landlord sent a letter citing an obscure 280-year-old law, the Distress for Rent Act 1737, demanding Chrissy pay double rent for each day she spent past the eviction date.
And so, after a problem-free 18-month tenancy and a rejected offer to pay off the new tenant’s £150 deposit, Chrissy was now faced with the choice of having nowhere to live, or paying 200% rent to a landlord who had told her he owned 25 other properties in the city.
Laughing, she says she should count herself ‘lucky’ that she now rents a room in a large family home. Though with little security, and scraping by to pay rent, in the context of the housing crisis Chrissy is lucky.
Because though her story is particular, a cocktail of factors across the country have culminated in severe insecurity for tenants, and the what the House of Commons select committee on housing have called “a clear imbalance of power” in favour of landlords.
A legal process with no defence
One piece of legislation has come to epitomise the difficulties so many of us have in securing a home.
Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, also known as ‘no-fault’ evictions, have risen to prominence and controversy in recent years as the legal method for landlords to rapidly evict tenants without having to raise any complaints.
As long as all the paperwork is served correctly, a tenant has no defence against a section 21 eviction.
The result, much like zero-hour contracts for workers, is a chronic state of insecurity for tenants which leaves them vulnerable to exploitation. Citizens Advice have found that nearly half of all tenants who make a formal complaint about their housing suffer a ‘revenge eviction’ via section 21. And with an inflated market, landlords can easily push up rents or cash in on a sale.
In Bristol, while overall repossessions are going down, section 21s account for an increasingly large share of evictions. From 2015 to the beginning of this year, analysis of data from Bristol County Court shows that of almost 2,000 housing repossessions claims brought by private landlords, section 21 accounts for three quarters of the subsequent evictions.
Housing solicitor at Avon and Bristol Law Centre, Mike Norman represents tenants day in and day out. “The risk of a section 21 notice puts such tenants in a position of considerable insecurity,” he says, adding that as there is no court hearing unless the paperwork is contested in “the tenant’s view, eviction feels like its been instigated as an administrative procedure.”
A question of power
Nick Ballard is an organiser with ACORN, the community union that has gained a reputation for helping tenants win battles with their landlords. For Ballard, this isn’t just a question of due process and legislation. “Section 21 represents the power of one class of people, landlords, over tenants,” he says.
With the Scottish equivalent abolished last year, ACORN is part of a campaign pitting “organised money against organised people” in a bid to scrap section 21 in England and Wales.
Why does Ballard think this piece of legislation from 1988 has gained such notoriety now? “In the context of a nationwide crisis in housing supply, and no rent controls, there is a massive incentive for landlords to pit tenants against each other, and seek whoever will pay the highest rent and evict anyone who can’t, or even sell up. Landlords are greedy, at the end of the day. That’s what it comes down to.”
Whether or not you agree with Ballard’s sentiment towards landlords, it’s hard to deny the attractive propositions offered by the crisis for those able to cash in. In Bristol, rents have gone up by a third in the past four years, according to official figures.
With a quarter of all households set to be renting in the very near future, insecure rented housing is firmly on the mainstream agenda. Even the Conservatives, who count many landlords within the Cabinet, are signalling intent to address the issue, though a recent plan for three-year tenancies has been ditched.
From edition 17, OUT NOW!
Read more from this edition.But landlords have pushed back with vigour. In response to calls to scrap section 21, the Residential Landlords Association’s policy director said, “No good landlord will want to evict a tenant unless there is a major issue around rent arrears or anti-social behaviour.”
The internet is now awash with warning articles about how landlords will be forced to pass costs of extra risk and regulation to tenants, or even a mass exodus of buy-to-let landlords from the market, with renters paying the price.
This doesn’t fly with Ballard. “I genuinely think it would be great if there was a mass exit of landlords from the market,” he smiles. “Landlords don’t build houses, they just own them. It wouldn’t change the number of houses in the country if they did, but it would change who could access them and under what terms.”
Another line of argument is that landlords should have the right to evict tenants, fault or no-fault. But Ballard says, “If there hasn’t been a breach of contract, why would landlords want to evict, apart from greed?”
Chrissy, now lodging in yet another insecure situation, accepts that renting out homes is a business, but thinks “landlords need to understand the social responsibility they have with these privileges”.
Report a comment. Comments are moderated according to our Comment Policy.
This is a hugely biased article. Section 21 does not guarantee the landlord gets possession in 2 months – in reality it takes an average of 42 weeks. Also the Distress for Rent Act could only be used if ‘Chrissy’ herself had given notice she wanted to leave. To imply it was the landlord’s fault she got run over is also taking it too far. And if other landlords didn’t think ‘Chrissy’ had a sufficient income to rent their places, what we are not told is whether she was in arrears with the other one. As usual, this is a case of a journalist reading up on the PRS, finding a case study and turning it into an emotive sob story, and only showing one side, with the then ideological aim of changing the law based on some biased anecdotes.
Great article.
My only niggle is that it would be handy to have a paragraph describing exactly what a s21 notice is / what the procedure is. Considering that’s what the article is focused on i think that would be helpful.
Otherwise, very interesting and informative :)
S.21 is a procedure to gain possession of a rental property without the need for specifying a reason. It’s a bit like “dismissal” is a procedure for ending someones employment.
However, there is always a reason, usually Tenants behaviour (though not always) e.g. non payment of rent, damaging the property, abusing neighbours, etc. There are other ways to evict a tenant but they are full of loopholes that rogue tenants exploit, even so it can take 42 weeks to evict a tenant if they ‘play’ the system, often not paying a bean in rent for the duration.
Increasingly s.21 are being used to gain possession as the Landlord is having to sell up to avoid bankruptcy due punitive taxation under Sec.24 Finance Act 2015 aka TenantTax, whereby Landlords can be tax at effective rates in excess of 100% – yes the taxman takes any profit made and some, and will even tax a Landlord if he/she has made a loss. Strangely Shelter supported/promoted this measure which they are complaining is now making people homeless. Scrapping s.21 will just drive more LAndlords out of the private rented sector and cause more homelessness -keep at it Shelter your making a job for yourselves.
Terrible article full of inaccuracies and downright mistakes from someone who clearly doesn’t understand the reason S21 exists. As for that Ballard character… what a joke! ‘Landlords must only need S21 out of greed’?! Yeah, that’s right, nothing to do with his own comment about how he wants all landlords out of the market! How will they achieve that without the necessary evictions to allow putative owners to buy?!?! What a fool he is. He wants landlords to sell, but doesn’t want the tenant evicted. He takes no account of having to sell because of 100% taxes, or because the owner needs the house back, or because the tenant is annoying the neighbours, or maybe even that the funds are required for pension or care home or operation… no, it can only be ‘greed’! Pillock.
Hello, I am the author of this piece and worked closely with a housing solicitor. If you would like to outline any inaccuracies that you have identified I would welcome that. Kind regards, Adam
Great article. Greedy landlords make families homeless. I have the huge good fortune to have been able to live at the same address for the past six years, and still pay reasonable rent. Everyone I know in Bristol who has moved house in that time (not always of their own volition) is paying eye-watering or downright extortionate rents. Yes, landlords DO use no fault evictions to move tenants on so that they can bump up their rental prices. That’s the way it’s been my entire adult life. I feel so bad for people who had kids five years ago when rents were affordable on average people’s incomes- their lives are impossible now.
It’s all gone quiet Adam, how strange. . .
I have to say that as a landlord, this article is terrible. As one of the poster said, its completely biased.
There is so much I could say here but don’t have the time. But –
As a landlord, if I wanted to increase rent, why would I issue a section 21? I would just increase the rent to my tenant. They can decide whether the rent increase is acceptable and stay or not and move on.
I currently have one tenant who is refusing to pay. He is £1000 in arrears. It will take months to get him out and this will go to about 5k and that’s if the court gives an order for possession which they may not. So the law for tenant V landlord is clearly on the tenant side.
Someone posted that they feel bad for people who had kids 5 years ago when rents were affordable. But generally, everything has increased in price. Including income and house prices, cost of mortgages are set to increase etc etc.
And to say landlords are greedy is just beyond ridiculous. Renting property is my business. It pays for my food, my families food and clothes on my back.
It would be just like me saying that the people who run my local chip shop are greedy because they just increased the price of my fish and chips or they just bought another fish and chip shop..
I house 24 people. I am respectful towards them, I am always helpful to towards them and would only become an issue to them, if they become an issue to me. So what issues did the tenant in your story give her landlord? We don’t know because you didn’t tell us.
For someone to say landlords should just exit is just a stupid thing to say. if we all exited, ALL tenants would receive a section 21 notice. No one would be able to rent because their would be no landlords. What would happen to my 24 tenants?
What would happen to ALL tenants?
They wouldn’t be able to rent. They wouldn’t be able to buy because they have no deposit.
What would happen to them?
Seriously, how can any intelligent person think that by all landlords exiting that would be good?
Or
Let’s say half the landlords exited and then there was a major shortage of rented properties. What do you think would happen to the rent on the remaining properties? They would sky rocket. And if the other poster is in fact correct. EVERYONE would be issued a section 21 so the remaining greedy landlords could double their prices over night.
I think if you can’t write stories from all angles, you shouldn’t bother.
If you can’t speak sense (Ballard) you shouldn’t speak…
one can’t write anything with out being biased,it’s impossible, I like the biased of this article… my favourite false comparision above is the fish and chip shop line, that is truely hilerious!