Poverty, evictions and forced moves

Four people from the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research (CCHPR) wrote the report, and a summary, for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF).  That is to say, four of its members are credited with writing it.  However, it looks as though Generation Rent has had a hand in it as well. Statistics about one method of eviction, Section 21 (S21), have been given a prominence they do not merit, and precedence over the conclusions, and S21 has been given a misleading prefix throughout.

The conclusion near the end of the full report does not mention S21.  It is followed by 18 recommendations, but again S21 is not mentioned.  Yet the Executive Summary at the beginning of the report concentrates on Section 21 – as if it was taken from a different report.

A separate document was issued which summarised the full report and concluded that:

“Increasing eviction rates are linked to the overall growth of the PRS and to cuts to LHA. Whilst the greatest impact is being felt in London, similar issues were found in other high-pressure markets. The continuing programme of cuts and restraints on state assistance with housing costs will intensify this pressure.”

It does not mention S21, but the two biggest paragraphs in the Key points on page 1 relate to S21:

• “In the past 12 years, the rented sector as a whole has grown by nearly a half, and the number of tenants being evicted from their homes has grown by a third: 10,000 more tenants lost their homes in 2015 than in 2003
• The number of tenants evicted by private landlords exceeded the number evicted by social landlords for the first time in 2014
• The increase in repossessions in recent years has been almost entirely due to the increasing use of ‘no fault’ evictions, using Section 21 (S21) of the Housing Act 1988, which enables landlords to end an assured shorthold tenancy after the end of its fixed term, with two months’ notice, without giving any reason. Tenants do not have a defence against a valid S21 notice.
• The use of S21 is highly concentrated geographically. Four out of every five repossessions using S21 are in London, the East and the South East, and nearly two-thirds are in London alone, although London only has one-fifth of the private rented housing stock. Even within London, repossessions using S21 are highly concentrated, with a third occurring in only five boroughs.”

The last two key points are:

• “Changes in welfare benefits have combined to make rents unaffordable to benefit claimants in many areas.
• As a result, tenants on low incomes are being evicted because their benefits do not pay market rents, and they are unable to afford alternative homes in the private rented sector, or access social housing.”

This put the cart before the horse.  The last two sentences explain why evictions have risen. Section 21 is just the means used.  It is chosen in preference to Section 8 because it costs less in time and money, and does not require a court case.  It is no surprise therefore that its use increased when benefits stopped covering the rent.

Both the report and the summary use the term “no fault” to describe S21 evictions because there is no requirement to prove to a judge that there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement in the form of rent arrears or anti-social behaviour.

The use of the term “no fault” implies that there were no grounds for S21 evictions, that the tenants had done nothing wrong and were therefore being victimised. However, the report itself acknowledges that S21 is being used to evict tenants for rent arrears and for anti-social behaviour.  The term “no fault” is deliberately misleading, brainwashing people into thinking that if S21 is used the tenant cannot have been at fault.

The full report and the summary can be downloaded from a page on the JRF website:  https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/poverty-evictions-and-forced-moves

This has an introduction which includes the Key points from the summary report, except that the last two, above are missing.  So the rest of the introduction is a non-sequitur: “JRF is calling for the Government to end the freeze on support for housing costs, and uprate Housing Benefit in line with local rents.”  It also uses the term “no fault”.

A press release was issued about the report: https://www.jrf.org.uk/press/100-families-day-lose-their-homes

This says that “The increasing eviction rates are linked to the overall growth of the private rented sector and cuts to Housing Benefit, the report by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research found.

“The rise is being driven by high numbers of ‘no-fault’ evictions by private landlords. [Emphasis added]  More than four in five of the increase in evictions are carried out under Section 21 – a law which allows landlords to evict a tenant after the initial rental period without giving a reason, and without any wrongdoing on behalf of the tenant.”  [Emphasis added]  This last phrase was not in the reports, and was added for good measure by the authors of the press release.  It implies that there were no grounds for these evictions, yet the report shows otherwise.

The press release does go on to explain that changes in benefits have made rents unaffordable to benefit claimants in many areas, and as a result tenants on low incomes are being evicted.

It continues “Four out of every five repossessions using S21 are in London, the East and the South East, and nearly two-thirds are in London alone. Even within London, repossessions using S21 are highly concentrated, with a third occurring in only five boroughs: Newham, Enfield, Haringey, Brent and Croydon.”  The authors probably don’t understand that landlords prefer the simple procedure of S21 to the more cumbersome procedure of Section 8.

Campbell Robb, Chief Executive of JRF,and Anne Baxendale, director of campaigns and policy at Shelter are then quoted as demanding that the government lift/abandon the freeze on Housing Benefit.  They do not mention S 21.

Finally, Anna Clarke, Senior Research Associate at the CCHPR, and the senior of the authors is quoted: “Alongside the difficulties caused by evictions, our research highlights the complete lack of options people on low incomes face when they lose their home. Greater protection from eviction is needed, but affordable, secure alternatives are too so people do not face even more stress and costs when they are forced to move.” [Emphasis added].

That gives us a clue as to who may have written the Executive Summary and the Key points that are so different from the conclusions and recommendations – by concentrating on “no fault” S21 instead of the HB freeze.

The Guardian then produced two articles based on the press release, to give S21 a good kicking

The first one, was by Michael Savage, Policy Editor with the headline:

“100 tenants a day lose homes as rising rents and benefit freeze hit”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/22/100-tenants-a-day-lose-homes-rising-rents-benefit-freeze

He didn’t just put the cart before the horse, he made it look as if they had nothing to do with each other.  He used the press release’s statistic about more than four-fifths of the increase in evictions being through “no-fault” S 21 before mentioning that Housing Benefit no longer covered the rent, but he did not connect the two things.

He wrote “High numbers of “no-fault” evictions by private landlords is driving the increase. More than 80% of the extra evictions had occurred under a Section 21 notice, which gives a tenant two months to leave. The landlord does not have to give a reason and there does not need to be any wrongdoing on the part of the tenant.” [Emphasis added]

Even after writing, “the study found that changes in welfare benefits have combined to make rents unaffordable to claimants in many areas,” he did not mention that was the reason for the evictions.  It was as if he was writing about two different groups of people – no-fault tenants who were being evicted for no reason, and people on benefits who were “struggling to meet their bills”.

But the article by Dan Wilson Craw, director of Generation Rent, was much more misleading.

“Landlords are turfing people out of their homes without reason – and it’s completely legal”

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/jul/25/no-fault-evictions-landlords-tenants?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

The headline is complete nonsense.  Nobody “turfs” people out of their homes, and nobody evicts tenants without a reason.

His article starts with “For every school in England there are five children without a home. The Local Government Association reports that 120,000 children are living in temporary accommodation. The primary cause of this homelessness is the end of a private sector tenancy, ie eviction.

Unfortunately, there is no official explanation for this, because private landlords don’t need to give a reason when they ask tenants to leave. In a study released on Sunday, Joseph Rowntree Foundation attributes 80% of the recent rise in evictions to this “no fault” process.”

The first paragraph is nonsense.  Eviction is not the cause of homelessness, it is merely the process through which it occurs.  The cause of homelessness is whatever triggered the eviction.  It can be the actions of the tenant.  It can be the needs of the landlord.  It can also be the actions of the government, driving landlords to sell up or increase rents due to tax increases (which ironically were supported by Campbell Robb when he ran Shelter).

The second paragraph is shameless.  The reason is in the full report, the summary report, and the press release: Changes in welfare benefits have combined to make rents unaffordable to benefit claimants in many areas.

He continued “While building more homes for long-term rent is important, we need a quicker solution. Ending section 21 could just be it.”  No it couldn’t.  Ending S21 could just be the last straw that drives small landlords out of the market.  About 1.7 million landlords have only one property, but they account for 38% of rental stock.

He went on: “Landlord groups claim their members only evict delinquent tenants and only use section 21 to do that, because it’s quicker than section 8. The English Housing Survey begs to differ, finding that 63% of evictions happen when a landlord plans to sell or otherwise use the property.”

This is a patently untrue.  No landlord group has ever denied that evictions occur due to the owner moving in or selling.  On the contrary, for two years now they have been telling all and sundry, including Generation Rent, that Osborne’s tax attacks are forcing landlords to sell with vacant possession.

“The majority of landlords, who are interested in keeping reliable tenants have no need for section 21.”  They certainly need it when their tenants become unreliable and stop paying the rent or become anti-social.  He clearly does not understand why S21 is used.

And “Landlords should be legally accountable for ending a contract early.  Enforcing a penalty for this type of behaviour, which could be paid to tenants, at a high enough rate that it could pay for setting up a new tenancy, would discourage blameless evictions.”   The very first comments beneath his article point out his ignorance: S21 cannot take effect before the end of the fixed period of a tenancy.

“Reforming this damaging law is Generation Rent’s top priority.”  He is so ignorant of the PRS that he does not realise that this would drive landlords out of the market and deter others from entering it, so that the stock of rental accommodation, already in short supply in some areas, will fall further while the population continues to increase.  This would make rents rise even more, to the detriment of the tenants he claims to represent. It would also cause an increase in evictions as landlords leave.  Is this the “greater protection from eviction” that Anna Clarke has in mind?

The post Poverty, evictions and forced moves appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Poverty, evictions and forced moves