Section 21 ban will not protect tenants from ‘economic eviction’ loophole

Section 21 ban will not protect tenants from ‘economic eviction’ loophole

0:01 AM, 1st July 2025, About A week ago 14

Text Size

Millions of private tenants will be left vulnerable to eviction despite the Renters’ Rights Bill’s claim to improve tenant protections, a survey reveals.

According to the Renters’ Reform Coalition (RRC), the legislation will abolish section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions but will not prevent landlords from imposing steep rent rises.

Those rent rises could effectively force tenants out of their homes with rises they can’t afford.

It says that four million renters – around 34% of tenants – could be forced to relocate if faced with a £110 rent increase.

The RRC is now calling for rent controls in a bid to close the economic eviction loophole.

‘Rent rise eviction loophole’

Coalition director, Tom Darling, said: “The Renters’ Rights Bill is long overdue.

“It will give renters more rights and protections and should help drive up housing standards.

“But the rent rise eviction loophole is a serious gap in the legislation.”

He added: “Even after section 21 is abolished, our research suggests as many as a third of renters will still face being pushed out of their homes and communities by rent increases, and landlords will be able to use rent hikes they know tenants cannot afford to threaten or intimidate.”

Content rent rises at tribunals

The coalition says a £110 rent rise would be equivalent to a 7.9% increase, which is close to England’s average annual rent rise.

It adds that the impact is particularly severe for families, with 29% of renters with children stating they would ‘definitely’ have to move.

Also, 24% of tenants indicated they would need to reduce spending on essentials, such as food, to cope with such increases.

The Bill would see tenants being able to contest excessive rent rises through tribunals.

However, RRC‘s analysis of tribunal cases in early 2025 reveals an average rent increase of £244.63 per month – that’s a 22.2% rise for tenants who challenged their landlords.

Put a cap on rent increases

The research shows that tribunals approved rent rises in more than 90% of cases, even in properties with severe disrepair or hazardous conditions.

Plus, 54% of renters are unaware of rent tribunals, and only 14% are ‘very likely’ to use them.

Mr Darling said: “The government’s proposed solution will not address this – our analysis shows rent tribunals will do nothing to protect the large proportion of renters who already cannot afford average market rents, even if they were willing to take their landlord to a tribunal in the first place.

“But a cap on rent increases would be simple to implement, putting money back into renters’ pockets and giving them real long-term security in their homes.”


Share This Article


Comments

Northern Observer

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

10:31 AM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

Removal of S21 won’t change anything, other than Landlords will now just have to give a reason on the S8 and it taking longer to evict. Oh and there being less supply / choice for tenants...

PAUL BARTLETT

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

10:33 AM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

Morons at work.
Rent cap controls will ensure that rents go up at every opportunity to mitigate the risk of future or current caps.

Further the risk of loss making properties will encourage owners to sell up so further reducing supply, thus increasing price.

These deluded activists continue to work against the Renters interests.

Monty Bodkin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

10:50 AM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

"Rent control, the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city except for bombing.”

-Professor Lindbeck, world renowned expert.

Chris @ Possession Friend

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

10:52 AM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

Reply to the comment left by Northern Observer at 01/07/2025 - 10:31... what the so-called Tenant lobby are 'missing', is the months of protection that an errant Tenant receives from the Removal of Sec 21 - there will be dozens of deserving, contract-compliant tenants waiting for that property to become vacant for re-letting.
The " 83 % " of satisfied tenants according to EHS should be campaigning Against the Renters Rights Bill !

PAUL BARTLETT

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

10:54 AM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

The Section 13 rent increase annually as restricted by RRB is a huge risk for Landlords when MPC meets every three weeks and can increase base rates every time so driving up finance costs.
That's a huge risk to turn modest profit of a few percent into a loss that's unsustainable while waiting many months to S13 to a sustainable rent.
Why would anyone sign up for that risk and government intervention.

Freda Blogs

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

11:10 AM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

“Mr Darling said: “The government’s proposed solution will not address this – our analysis shows rent tribunals will do nothing to protect the large proportion of renters who already cannot afford average market rents, even if they were willing to take their landlord to a tribunal in the first place.”

Whilst sympathetic with the tenants who cannot afford market rents, it is not the role of the private sector landlord to subsidise tenants who cannot do so, particularly in this environment of rising costs and obligations on landlords for everything under the sun, and risks of significant fines for non-compliance.

Which bit of this glaring disconnect does Mr. Darling not understand? Landlords don’t have to be landlords, and many of us are simply walking away, tired and frustrated with this continued myopia from Tom Darling and his ilk.

NewYorkie

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

11:59 AM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

Reply to the comment left by Freda Blogs at 01/07/2025 - 11:10
As I've said on the BBC and in The Times, after a tenant stopped paying rent and I couldn't evict him for 15 months, I do not provide social housing.

I now have only one rental property, which is currently empty because my tenant decided to suddenly vacate, after 5 years at well below market rent, and even after I had agreed to reduce my annual rent increase (because they couldn't afford it!).

To give these hard-done-by renters an idea of a landlord's costs, I've had no rent coming in for 3 months, but still have to pay £850 per month in mortgage, service charge, ground rent, and insurance. The market rent is £825! I'll also be responsible for the council tax until it is re-let. I've also had £2500 in costs for repairs and house clearance.

The only reason that (really nice) apartment is still available for rent is because I can't sell it due to leasehold and 'fire safety' non-issues. But I will sell just as soon as I can.

DP

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

14:18 PM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

I have a room which could have been re-let months ago were it not for the delay in the courts after Sec 21 issued to an already absent tenant who had left their belongings behind and threatened illegal eviction if I touched anything. The tenant is not living there anymore but I have to go through a lengthy and costly procedure to gain possession. Now, because of this experience and the apparent worsening situation for landlords once the RRB becomes law I am now turning away less than well appointed people for a recently re-furbished flat, who I would once have housed, because I cannot afford to have to go through this any more, if avoidable, and as a private landlord now feel very vulnerable so I am quite frankly not prepared take unnecessary risks. It's becoming a bit of a one way street. Not good for landlords or tenants.

DP

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

14:30 PM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

Reply to the comment left by PAUL BARTLETT at 01/07/2025 - 10:54
It's because they have no idea or do not want to know what running a property business is like and the serious situation some of us have been placed. They disregard the financial aspect and mechanics of running a property business and do not even recognise it as a business hence Section 24 etc.We are here to house the people they can't and now they are going to try and use us to house illegal immigrants.

Disillusioned Landlord

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!

Sign Up

20:23 PM, 1st July 2025, About 7 days ago

Reply to the comment left by DP at 01/07/2025 - 14:18I’m currently in exactly the same situation, tenants moved out three months ago but have threatened illegal eviction if I don’t get a court order - just being vindictive, and after I’ve housed them without an issue for six years. I can only assume they have spoken to someone and are looking for some sort of pay out, so off to court we have gone, I’ve no idea where they now live, and the house is trashed, I’ll be over £10k out of pocket and will be selling it.

1 2

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More