Landlords not to blame for rising homelessness – OFFICIAL!

If I gain possession via Section 21 and sell my vacant property to a first time buyer, then my Section 21 hasn’t increased homelessness. It has just replaced a tenanted property with a homeowner property.

The process would make one family (potentially) homeless and provides a property for a family that might otherwise be homeless.

It’s a zero sum game.

Homelessness has been caused by the government’s decision to allow mass migration whilst failing to encourage house builder to build the necessary housing.

Labour have increased SDLT, further stifling investment in housing. Without investors, many people that are unable to buy a property are likely to be homeless. Government needs to encourage investors (including landlords) to buy property otherwise there is only the public purse to fund new housing.

It really is that simple.

The most common recorded reason for households being owed a prevention duty due to the end of an AST was the landlord wishing to sell or relet the property, 8,950 households in total. Of these, 6,520 were due to landlords wishing to sell, and 2,430 due to landlords wishing to relet.

Where is the actual evidence to categorically show
without ANY doubt that the landlord reason is to sell or relet??

There is no where to give ANY reason on a S21 (even if you could) and ‘wishing to relet’ is not a ground under S8???

Why not just state 8,950 were due to legal ending of an AST.

Ahhh….it I know…it doesnt fit the narrative.

After S21 goes, they should be able list the number of total number of legal endings of a private tenancy AND the specific grounds used…

Now that will be interesting!

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 05/08/2025 – 08:23

“If I gain possession via Section 21 and sell my vacant property to a first time buyer, then my Section 21 hasn’t increased homelessness. It has just replaced a tenanted property with a homeowner property.”

This is a correct up to a point however if it is sold to a FTB who is living at home then it will add to homelessness.

Not the landlords faulty just simple reality of insufficient housing being build for decades.

I suspect there is a huge backlog of frustrated kids, (& parents), who are living at home that are desperate to move out but haven’t been able to get a mortgage. So, as the govt makes mortgages easier to obtain, I believe it’ll be this group rather than renters who will benefit, with the unintended consequences that it will actually make the rental crisis worse.

Landlords have never evicted anyone on a whim. There has always been a valid reason. That reason has never needed to be stated on a Section 21.

Before the tenant fees ban Letting Agents would routinely evict tenants so they could charge multiple fees for reletting but that is dim and distant history.

Interesting that the Home Office is now deemed to be responsible for a significant amount of homelessness.

The claim that section 21 notices cause homelessness is superficially attractive. It will be unwelcome news and a surprise to many, but Section 21 does not cause homelessness.
In fact its removal (and other provisions in the Renters’ Rights Bill) are very likely to increase homelessness.
The claim that Section 21 causes homelessness is an example of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. “After this, therefore because of this.” It may be true that many people who are homeless received a s21 notice.
However, the real reason tenants become homeless is because there are not enough affordable properties to rent in desired areas. If you think this is untrue, pose a question: “Suppose a tenant has received a s21 notice and has had to leave the property. Will he or she be homeless if there are other affordable properties to rent in the vicinity?” The answer, obviously, is No. The cause of homelessness is not the s21 notice but the absence of affordable alternative accommodation.

@Jo Westlake, not all landlords are decent and some do evict “on a whim” or because the tenant makes a reasonable request for repairs to be done or heating systems fixed. Arguing that landlords never evict for capricious reasons will make you seem callous to those who have been evicted for no good reason.
The RRB is coming, heaven help us but please make the point to tenants and politicians that the causes of homelessness are (a) too much immigration – thank Tony Blair’s government for starting that massive ball rolling – (b) too little housebuilding, exacerbated by a planning system that increases costs and causes delay and benefits only NIMBYs and (c) over-regulation and general demonisation of landlords who stop renting out. Each property taken off the rental market potentially makes the problem worse.
@Chepstow Landlord makes a good point that selling a previously rented home to someone who was living with their parents (probably someone from a better off family with space to take adult children) does not mean that the number of homeless decreases.

Reply to the comment left by Chepstow Landlord at 05/08/2025 – 10:43
‘ This is a correct up to a point however if it is sold to a FTB who is living at home then it will add to homelessness.’

I disagree. The FTBer leaving home is adding to the homelessness number. The property still houses one family – no change.

You could just as easily argue that the evicted tenant that doesn’t move back to their parents’ home are adding to homelessness.

Section 21 is usually a zero sum game. One family out, one family in.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 05/08/2025 – 11:56
Spot on.

A rapid increase in the U.K. population is the underlying cause. Mass migration was not expected and therefore planning failed to address the population explosion. This impacts everything from housing to schools, hospitals to dentistry.

Failing to plan is like planning to fail.

We don’t have enough houses because of mass migration. Replace the word houses with hospitals, dentists, sewage capacity, water supply, electricity, gas, roads. You name it, if people use it amd we have millions more people than expected, we have failed to plan appropriately.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 05/08/2025 – 14:20
I have often read the comment that the landlord exodus isn’t a problem as the house still remains and will be occupied by someone else.
I feel this is simplistic and ignores the build up of wannbe owners who currently don’t rent (i.e. Still at home) but with the current relaxing of the mortgage requirements will be in a position to buy with the result the pool of rental properties shrinks whilst the demand is unchanged.
I appreciate this principally relates to the 1-2 bed flat/house end of the market.

There should be another part under Section 8, Ground 1A (landlord selling). It should specify WHY the landlord is selling (and therefore, why the tenant is losing their home.

Something like,

Government policies:-
unfair taxation
over-regulation
selective licensing
disproportionate penalties
(tick all that apply)