Shelter blames delayed Section 21 ban for thousands of evictions

Shelter (who don’t provide shelter to anyone) are wrong.

The reason for landlords issuing Section 21 Notices is the real cause of tenants losing their homes.

Section 21 is simply the vehicle of choice as Section 8 is considered more costly and more stressful. Why would you use Section 8 when Section 21 is available and, if the paperwork is correct, guarantees a judge will award possession to the landlord?

So, what are the reasons for landlords issuing Section 21 Notices?

There are plenty and I’m sure we all know what they are. Ultimately, it’s the government, spurred on by the likes of Shelter, that cause landlords to seek possession to sell up.

When Section 21 is abolished, Section 8 will be used instead. Section 8 may prove less burdensome than Section 21 as it doesn’t require the same level of compliance with documentation.

Fewer people want to be landlords. If I don’t gain possession and sell my properties, my children will do so when I shuffle off this mortal coil. Being a landlord is no longer an attractive thing to be.

Shelter should put their hands up and admit that THEY are one of the main reasons for homelessness,

I have told my 6 remaining tenants I won’t be getting rid of them. However when I croak it that will be the first thing my wife and kids do – sell the properties

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 15/08/2025 – 08:22
I told mine something similar however, I feel it is unfair to leave it for me to leave tidying up the business to my wife and children.

That old trope about homelessness and S21 has long been debunked. But the only landlord I know about who has kicked out tenants and increased her rent, is Rushara Ali MP (Labour), and just for good measure, Lambeth Council is evicting 160 private sector tenants… so they can house the homeless!

Shelter should have known a primary consequence of the RRB would be landlords exiting the PRS, and in doing so, reducing supply and increasing rents. It’s been accelerating since 2019, and the RRB is the final straw. Unfortunately, for the Country, the Left aren’t very good at sums!

Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 15/08/2025 – 09:31
We’ll always only hear of high profile landlords doing things like that. However, she didn’t ’kick her tenants out’. Landlords cannot that. In this case, I don’t think she even issued a Section 21 and the tenants chose to leave because she told them she was planning to sell.

Shelter know that the RRB is bad news for tenants. But it good news for the millions of pounds they raise every year from gullible people. That is how Shelter operate.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 15/08/2025 – 10:38
And from all accounts the property was listed for sale in November 2023 and had a £20k price cut in February 2024. As the tenants has reportedly left it was presumably vacant during this time – and only taken off the sales market when time had elapsed from the price cut point and the owner decided their price expectation could not be met.

As the old rent was obviously well behind the market at the time it was re-let and I’d expect the old tenants to be accommodated under new tenancies elsewhere, I’m astonished bona fide landlords posting on here are just talking about ‘kicking’ tenants out and treating the property as if it were some possession of the state rather than questioning the sense of the RRB which will mandate a period of the homeless sleeping in cardboard boxes outside such properties rather than any chance of inside them.

Yes, there was hypocrisy but strictly speaking the MP should have waited for whatever period is to be mandated in RRB to avoid that accusation (or pointed out to Starmer she couldn’t carry on her Ministerial role due to a potential conflict of interests. And how thick must Starmer be not to have seen the danger in giving her that job. He is truly clueless).

The usual fake news from No Shelter.

Shelter et Al shouldn’t have been shouting, screaming and campaigning for the removal of s21 – do they really think having to state the Grounds that someone is being evicted for actually benefits tenants?

It certainly benefits landlords in their future considering whether a prospective tenant would even be seriously considered. They didn’t think of that!

Many PRS landlords who have taken on tenants who have previously been evicted under s21, and I include myself despite thorough referencing, if they’d known the real reasons for getting shot of the tenant(s) wouldn’t have touched them with a bargepole.

Only sensible rewording of s8 Ground 1 is the removal of the requirement for a landlord to have previously lived in the property as their main residence.

Maybe the NRLA should confirm this. “Yes, S21 are up because landlords rights will be abused when the RRB comes in.” What else would you expect?

There is almost no such thing as a no fault eviction. Either silly minimum room size legislation is at fault or tax regimes or most usually because the tenant is at fault so we use a section 21. It should be called a no reason given eviction.