Why the abolition of Section 21 isn’t a cause for celebration

I’m among the many landlords across England who are watching the clock tick down to May 1 with keen interest for when Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions end under the Renters’ Rights Act.

And no, it’s not so I can gloat when tenant evictions, apparently the ‘main cause of homelessness’ schtick we are constantly bombarded with, don’t fall.

For years, tenant campaigners and politicians have painted Section 21 as the root of all evil in the private rented sector.

It’s a tool for heartless landlords to turf out families on a whim, driving homelessness and insecurity. The narrative is devastatingly simple, emotive and, sadly, misleading.

But that doesn’t stop the drip-drip of negative publicity, with the Mirror this week having a headline stating that the ending of Section 21 ‘can’t come soon enough’.

What critics are about to learn is that Section 21 isn’t some arbitrary power grab; it’s a practical, efficient mechanism that landlords have relied on since the Housing Act 1988 introduced assured shorthold tenancies to revive a stagnant rental market.

Unnecessary evictions

Critics claim these evictions are ‘unfounded’ and ‘unnecessary’, implying they’re used solely to punish complaining tenants or squeeze higher rents.

In reality, most Section 21 notices serve as a swift alternative when problems arise, like persistent rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, property damage, or simply when a landlord needs the property back for legitimate reasons.

Going the full Section 8 route (proving fault in court) is slower, costlier and riskier, especially with backlogged courts.

Section 21 provided certainty: two months’ notice, no drawn-out battles, quicker repossession.

It protected landlords from endless non-payment or disruption while keeping the sector viable.

Abolishing it won’t reduce evictions or homelessness as promised and that’s because the underlying causes won’t be going away.

That is arrears, tenancy breaches, anti-social behaviour and subletting. I could go on, but I’m wary that my comments will be deemed as being critical about tenant behaviour.

And we can’t have that because only landlords can be seen as being badly behaved.

But here’s the rub: Section 8 processes are notoriously slow and expensive.

The courts remain clogged, legal fees can hit thousands, and rent losses mount during delays.

A landlord without income

No one outside of the sector seems to appreciate that many landlords will face months without income or control over their own asset.

Eviction numbers won’t drop – they’ll become messier, more adversarial and potentially more frequent in contested cases.

I’m guessing that I’ll soon be writing about landlords having to deal with all sorts of made-up nonsense besmirching their character as tenants get to remain in the property for free, thanks to lenient judges.

Worse still, the real hammer blow is already landing as small landlords are exiting en masse.

Surveys and reports show sharp rises in rental properties hitting the sales market, with many previously let homes not re-entering the sector.

Those with one or two properties point to the Act’s burdens which bring higher risks, compliance costs and uncertain possession as the final straw.

Larger corporate landlords may absorb the hit, but the backbone of the private rented sector of individual owners is shrinking fast.

It looks like there has been a ‘fire sale’ ahead of the ban which has already displaced tenants under existing Section 21 notices, often to sell.

Tenant activists and media outlets deny a landlord exodus and ignore their own campaigns which led to this impasse.

Section 21 own goal

This is the ultimate own goal. Activists like Shelter and Generation Rent, along with politicians chasing votes, sold the abolition as a ‘game changer’ for tenants.

But in doing so, they ignored why Section 21 existed in the first place which was to encourage investment in rented homes by balancing landlord and tenant rights.

The reasons include protecting landlords from bad tenants and enabling quick recovery.

But those reasons haven’t vanished and the sector won’t become magically risk-free.

A contracting private rented sector, rising costs passed to tenants and blame directed to the very people they drove away.

Good landlords, those of us who maintain properties, offer fair terms and provide safe homes, will continue selling to avoid the hassle.

The bad ones will stay and continue ignoring laws, exploiting loopholes or cutting corners.

The real shame is that politicians and campaigners know little about how landlords actually operate: balancing mortgages, repairs, voids and risks on often modest margins.

They treat private renting as an endless tap of housing for them to utilise, not a business sustained by confidence.

Scrapping Section 21 erodes that confidence without fixing courts or incentives.

The Renters’ Rights Act may deliver headlines, but it won’t deliver more secure homes.

It will shrink supply and punish the very renters it claims to protect.

When homelessness persists or worsens, and rents soar, the finger-pointing will be revealing.

Those tenant advocates won’t admit their role in this mess because they’ll just find new villains.

Landlords, meanwhile, will have already voted with their feet and they won’t be coming back.

Until next time,

The Landlord Crusader

Crusader update: Two-tier Starmer is at it again! He told the commons this week: “Renters should have security and I condemn any unfair evictions. I’m proud to be abolishing Section 21, a practice that has pushed thousand of households into homelessness.” Proud? Come back after the summer (if you are still in the job) and explain what has happened with your pride and a law that won’t deliver what you claim. Loon.