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

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

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.

The post Why the abolition of Section 21 isn’t a cause for celebration appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Why the abolition of Section 21 isn’t a cause for celebration

An open letter to Shelter Scotland

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

An open letter to Shelter Scotland

An open letter to Shelter Scotland: if you want to work with landlords, let’s start with the evidence

In a recent interview, Shelter’s new chief executive suggested the organisation is ready to work more closely with private landlords to address the housing crisis. LINK

She said the housing sector would need to “work as a collective” if the system is to improve and homelessness is to be reduced.

That is a statement many landlords will welcome, albeit with caution and a healthy dose of scepticism.

For several years now, the relationship between the private rented sector and housing campaign organisations has often felt adversarial. Landlords have frequently been portrayed as part of the problem rather than part of the solution, so if Shelter now truly wishes to engage constructively with landlords, that is an encouraging development. However, constructive dialogue requires something more than good intentions. It requires clarity about evidence, policy and outcomes.

That is why, following the discussion beneath a recent Property118 article examining the economics of rent control, I would like to put several questions to Shelter Scotland.

These questions are offered in the spirit of genuine inquiry.

The Scottish rent control experiment

Scotland is often cited as one of the most ambitious rent regulation environments in the United Kingdom. In recent years the Scottish Government has introduced rent caps and emergency restrictions on rent increases, with proposals for permanent rent control zones now under discussion. Many of these measures have been strongly supported by housing campaign groups, including Shelter Scotland.

Supporters argue that such policies are necessary to protect tenants from rapidly rising rents and to stabilise the housing market.

Critics, however, argue that rent controls risk discouraging investment in rental housing, ultimately reducing supply.

This is not a theoretical debate; Scotland now provides a real-world policy experiment that can be examined using actual data.

The central question

The fundamental question is straightforward; have the policies that Shelter Scotland has supported improved the availability and affordability of housing, or have they had unintended consequences for housing supply?

If rent controls successfully stabilise the housing system, we should expect to see clear evidence in the form of improved housing outcomes.

If they discourage investment and reduce supply, that should also be visible in the data.

Either way, the evidence matters.

Questions for Shelter Scotland

In the spirit of constructive dialogue, I would therefore like to ask Shelter Scotland the following questions.

1. What empirical evidence does Shelter Scotland rely on to support rent control policies?

In particular, what evidence suggests rent controls increase housing supply or long-term affordability?

2. How does Shelter Scotland interpret the Scottish experience since rent caps were introduced?

Have investment levels in the private rented sector increased, decreased, or remained stable during this period?

3. What role does Shelter Scotland believe private landlords should play in addressing housing shortages?

If the private rented sector is to be part of the solution, how should policy encourage investment rather than discourage it?

4. Does Shelter Scotland believe rent controls can operate without affecting housing supply?

If so, what evidence supports that view?

5. Would Shelter Scotland support policies designed specifically to encourage landlords to increase housing supply?

Examples might include incentives for renovation of empty homes, conversions or new rental development.

This approach to housing policy debate is not new on Property118. Several years ago, David Knox FCA, writing under the pseudonym Appalled Landlord, examined official housing statistics and local authority spending patterns to explore how policy decisions were affecting housing supply. His articles were not polemics. They were careful examinations of publicly available data and the trajectories those figures suggested. The questions raised in this letter follow the same principle: if policies are introduced to improve housing outcomes, it is reasonable to ask what the evidence now shows.

A shared objective

There is one point on which landlords, housing charities and policymakers should all be able to agree; Britain needs more homes.

The housing shortage affects tenants, landlords, councils and taxpayers alike.

If Shelter’s leadership genuinely wishes to work with the private rented sector, many landlords would welcome that conversation. but for it to be productive, the discussion must begin with a clear examination of the evidence.

Housing policy should be guided by what works in practice, not simply by what sounds appealing in theory.

An invitation to respond

This article is offered as an open invitation for Shelter Scotland to respond.

If the organisation wishes to clarify its position, explain the evidence behind its policy recommendations or address the questions raised above, Property118 would be pleased to publish that response in full.

Constructive debate, after all, is far more valuable than silence.

The post An open letter to Shelter Scotland appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: An open letter to Shelter Scotland

Room rents rocket in UK cities

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Room rents rocket in UK cities

Sharp rises in room rents across major UK cities are affecting affordability for tenants and shaping demand as a result.

Research from flatshare site SpareRoom shows Belfast recorded the steepest increase among the UK’s 20 largest cities over the past five years.

Average room rents in the Northern Irish capital climbed 53.2% between Q4 2020 and Q4 2025.

Tenants now pay £589 a month on average, compared with £384 five years earlier, adding £2,460 a year to housing costs.

Rent affordability stretched

A director of platform, Matt Hutchinson, said: “Flatsharing has long afforded people the opportunity to live in cities, but disproportionate rent increases in recent years have created a barrier to urban living for those at the sharp end of the housing crisis.

“Affordability has been stretched to breaking point, and it’s even changing the dynamics of shared households.

“Flatsharers are getting older as younger people are being priced out of the rental market altogether, and suburban housesharing is now increasingly common as more people are priced further out of cities too.”

He added: “It’s not knowledge workers who suffer most, it’s often the lowest-paid workers – including those in essential and key worker roles, hospitality and retail jobs – who keep our cities functioning.”

Most expensive cities

The research shows the next most expensive for room rents is Newcastle with a five-year increase of 51.7%.

That takes the average room rent to £605 per month.

Cardiff ranks third, where rents have risen 49.9% over the same period to reach £666 a month.

Glasgow appears next with room rents having increased 44.5% in five years, bringing the average monthly cost to £690.

Manchester has recorded a five-year increase of 43.2%, although the latest annual figure shows a fall of 3.7% between Q4 2024 and Q4 2025.

In London the average monthly room rent now sits at £985, up from £721 in Q4 2020, representing a five-year increase of 36.6%.

National average room rent

Bradford remains the cheapest of the 20 cities analysed at £472 per month.

However, rents there are 31.6% higher than they were five years ago.

Across the UK, excluding inner London, average monthly room rents reached £670 in Q4 2025 – five years ago they stood at £494.

The average UK room rent is now £749 a month, compared with £580 in Q4 2020.

The post Room rents rocket in UK cities appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Room rents rocket in UK cities