Government data challenges its own eviction claims

Reply to the comment left by Simon Kinzley at 10/07/2026 – 16:04
It began under Theresa May who became prime minister just as the war on landlords was being implemented, the purpose of which was to disenfranchise landlords and drive them out of the market in favour of owner-occupiers. So there was a wave of selling and landlords often used Section 21 to get vacant possession prior to selling.

When stories began to emerge of people being asked to leave their homes, often after many years, the stupid politicians including May didn’t bother to ask why and just assumed that landlords were dreadful people for turfing tenants out of their homes for no good reason. They then lazily assumed that section 21 was the problem rather than just the symptom of what was going on and deemed that abolishing it would fix the problem of “no-fault evictions”.

Now we have such a mess, but at least with such an imbalance of supply and demand we can afford to be ultra-picky about who we let into our properties. But good luck to subprime tenants and those not on enhanced benefits like PIP, as they will have no chance of getting anywhere to rent other than social housing..

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 11/07/2026 – 04:19
The government seems to be about to dramatically reduce PIP, tenants relying on PIP payments for anything other than medical need are in for a nasty surprise.

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 04:19
As stated, it’s not just the Labour Party, it’s the political class.
However, I don’t think it’s because they want to encourage owner occupiers. I think it’s for other reasons:
1. Because they want smaller landlords pushed out and then replaced by big corporates who probably bankroll them. Once they have supplanted us, they will strip away lots of these regulations.
One consequence of this is that people like me, who got into this when I saw people cheated out of their private pensions in the early ninties will have nowhere to go, but poverty and dependency. They really are decimating the middle class and polarising society into a few very rich people and a vast mass of very poor people.
2. The British state is skint amd grabbing money whereever it can. Along with banks and utility companies, we landlords are despised and an easy mark to extract money from. We don’t have powerful, corrupt friends like banks and utilities.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 11/07/2026 – 11:07
So are the landlords who house these individuals.

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 11/07/2026 – 04:19
If there was a wave of landlords using section 21 prior to selling their properties then the Renters Rights Act makes no difference in this area because wanting to sell is grounds for getting your property back under the Renters Rights Act.

Whilst that change will have made no difference, what the Labour Renters Rights act has done by getting rid of no fault evictions is to remove any powers landlords had to deal with antisocial behaviour.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 11/07/2026 – 15:53
You can then fine landlords for failing to address antisocial behaviour, a win for all local authorities.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 15:53
Absolutely, a classic case of “band-aid solutionism” typical of the political establishment, Section 21 was never “no-fault”, nor an an actual eviction. The whole debacle amounts to fraud by false representation on a national scale. No-fault evictions are not going anywhere for now. Although don’t hold your breath, as we could go back to the regulated tenancies of the late 70s in a few years.
The only power we now have to control anti-social behaviour, rent dodgers and the like is by rigorously vetting any potential tenant and refusing anybody that gives us the slightest cause for doubt. And increasing rents to cover the extra cost of the risk or RGI or whatever the preferred solution is. It might even get to the point where we use the inevitable rent increases to fund a deposit alternative on behalf of the tenant, if that is legal or has any merit.

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 11:47
Well, my tenancy agreements have gone from five to 18 pages. There is a clause in the agreements stating that if I have to take action due to the tenant breaching the agreement he/she is also liable for legal costs. Breaches of a tenancy agreement may be discretionary when it comes to enforcing eviction, but it can provide leverage with some bad tenants.

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 11/07/2026 – 04:19
A lot of assumptions here:

1. Why do you think their purpose is to replace rentals with owner occupiers rather than large corporate landlords? What is your evidence for this being their motivation?
2. Why do you think they are doing it because they think landlords are “awful people”. Maybe they are just playing to that populist notion because there are a lot more tenant voters than landlord voters in key constituencies across the country. Maybe they are just telling people what they want to hear as a toll to get elected regardless of the real world consequences.

Reply to the comment left by Simon Kinzley at 13/07/2026 – 08:53
I think that “….telling people what they want to hear…” is right, whether you are talking about labour, conservative or the greens.

However, labour are interfering in a free market, despite interfering in the rental market labour haven’t fixed the problems in the rental market that do need fixing, and the Labour Renters Rights Act will drive rents up for consumers.

As well as listening to members of other parties in the House of Commons, and House of Lords, labour should have asked for an updated view from the Competition and Markets Authority on the likely impact of its proposals on the rental market: Labour have driven out competition.