What is Section 21 and why does it need to be scrapped?

Landlords can remove tenants without giving a reason. That’s unfair and it needs to change.

Most of England’s 11 million renters are on contracts with fixed terms of six months or a year; after this period has ended, landlords can evict their tenants with just two months’ notice – and without even giving them a reason. These ‘no fault evictions’ were introduced under section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act. Before this, private tenants had much greater security and it was much harder for landlords to evict tenants who paid the rent on time and looked after the property. The government has finally decided to consult on ways of improving renter security, but - while there are some promising aspects to their proposals - they suggest that no-fault evictions will remain. Generation Rent, the New Economics Foundation, ACORN and the London Renters Union are launching a campaign to abolish section 21.


Why is this important?

1) Homelessness

Evictions are the number 1 cause of homelessness. 80% of evictions are on no-fault grounds, and 63% of private renters who were forced to move in 2016 were evicted not due to any fault of their own but because the landlord wanted to sell or use the property.

2) Anxiety and quality of life

Even for those unlikely to be made homeless, section 21 can mean constant anxiety and insecurity – particularly for the 1.8 million renter households with children or the growing numbers of older people renting privately.

3) Local community

Insecurity harms quality of life for tenants, with private renters less likely than either owners or people in council housing to say they know lots of people in their local area, but more worried that they will have to move within the next year.

4) Weakened tenants’ rights

The threat of being evicted gives landlords huge power over tenants, who may decide not to complain about disrepair, big rent increases or other problems in case they are kicked out.

5) Private landlords are fuelling the housing crisis

Landlords’ ability to cash in their investment with minimal fuss makes buying a property seem like a low-risk investment for amateur landlords, who can evict and sell up when prices increase. This fuels the buy-to-let market, pushing up house prices - which forces would-be homeowners to rent.  


Shouldn’t landlords have the right to evict when they like?

No. Landlords take an income or have their mortgage paid from rents; in return, tenants should have the right to a secure home and a stable life, free from the anxiety of being evicted for no justifiable reason. Other parts of housing law deal with at-fault evictions. Removing Section 21 does not mean landlords won’t be able to take action when tenants fail to pay rent or damage property.


What is the alternative?

With house prices out of control, growing numbers of people have no option but to rent. To give them the chance of a decent home, it is clear that the power balance needs to shift away from private landlords.

In Europe alone, many countries have adopted housing laws that prioritise the health and wellbeing of tenants over the flexibility of private landlords. In Germany for example, tenancies are indefinite and properties are often bought and sold with tenants included. Across the border, the Scottish government has already acted to protect tenants by abolishing the Scottish equivalent of Section 21 last year.

There are a range of proposals on how to give tenants greater security, but we can do better than the current law that causes instability for millions. What is clear is that the current housing law in England and Wales prioritises the financial interests of private landlords rather than the health and happiness of renters and this is pushing up house prices, making ownership less attainable for swathes of the population. Section 21 is out-dated and incompatible with the current housing crisis. It needs to go.


Renter power is growing

Image 1: increase in renting, decline in ownership (source: Resolution Foundation)

Image 2: more 25-34s rent privately than own a home (Source: English Housing Survey)

There are growing numbers of renters – enough to outnumber owners in well over 100 parliamentary seats by the next election – and a wide range of groups now support getting rid of no-fault evictions. The campaign to end section 21, launched in June 2018, has already been backed by the London Assembly and The Times, among others. See a full list of supporters here. The law has changed in Scotland, and the UK government - which was recently forced to say it would ban lettings agents’ fees after a big public campaign - has already admitted the need to protect renter security.  


What can I do?

Join tens of thousands of renters in signing our petition calling on the government to abolish no-fault evictions.  

If you are a member of a political party or a union, you can use this model motion to get your organisation to back the campaign to end section 21. 

Join a local renters group like ACORN or the London Renters Union; they can give you advice and support, and help tenants challenge and resist evictions collectively. Find out who is active near you and register your interest here.

Showing 18 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Rachel Morris
    commented 2019-06-12 15:43:16 +0100
    I’m 100% in support of getting rid of ‘no fault’ evictions. I’m 100% in support of tenants who damage property, don’t pay their rent or are an anti-social nuisance being dealt with by a Section 8, as this will formalise the reasons they were evicted and give the landlord an opportunity to recover what is owed via a CCJ, and ensure that the tenant won’t get away with doing the same to another landlord.

    What’s not OK is that landlords are being forced to use Section 21 as it is much much quicker, therefore giving organisations such as GR and Shelter an opportunity to claim that X number of tenants were evicted for no fault of their own, when in reality they were most likely evicted due to their own unacceptable behaviour. The current court system we have is not fit for purpose. Make it work for tenants AND landlords and you will find support from both sides.

    Good tenants are fed up with being tarred with the same brush as those who will withhold rent, damage property and upset the neighbours. Good landlords are fed up of being penalised constantly (for providing a home for someone who in other circumstances wouldn’t be able to afford to buy. Heaven forbid they should benefit at the same time?

    The Tenants Fee Act will likely make it incredibly difficult for any renter with a pet to find a new property who will allow them to bring their pet, since the landlord can no longer take a larger security deposit.

    Many have said it, but i’ll say it again. Good landlords DONT evict Good tenants for NO REASON. Turning over a property is hard work and time consuming so we don’t want to keep doing it regularly. Landlords use Section 21s simply to remove bad tenants as quickly as possible.
  • Rob Thomas
    commented 2018-11-24 14:33:28 +0000
    To Dave Edmunds

    Hi Dave
    I am a landlord and I don’t hate my tenants at all, quite the opposite in fact. When a landlord gets a bad tenant, someone who deliberately damages the property, causes distress to neighbours through anti-social behaviour or chooses not to pay rent when they can afford to, the landlord naturally will be upset with this tenant. Would you say that all shop keepers hate their customers because of what they think of shoplifters? No, so don’t apply the same twisted logic to landlords.
  • David Edmunds
    commented 2018-10-02 13:40:40 +0100
    Astonishing reading all the comments by Landlords on here, it shows how & why Landlords & Renters hate each other, and I do mean hate.

    I have read all the drivel you Landlords come up with, comments like we renters should be grateful for Landlords how arrogant can you get ?.

    When the rental market shrunk because it was hard to evict a renter this kept house prices low as where did these renters live either in social housing or they could afford to buy, the growth of the BTL followed the selling off of social homes which wernt replaced, meaning renters who could not buy were forced into private rental with s*d all security of tenure.

    The rise of the HMO, ie bedsits land renamed, the Tories voting against minimum standards for rentals says it all.

    The cost of moving so often is mind boggling, over 10 yrs on top of my rent its cost me 25K made up of fees, moving costs, storage costs, non refunded deposits, paying two rents while I move and so on, so as far as im concerned many of you are up your own ar*ses & scum.

    I like many have had to move so many times because the Landlord wanted the property back to sell or whatever reason and it certainly wasnt non payment of rent, I couldnt give a damn why they wanted it back but with a section 21 get it back they could, then just 2 months to find another house, a suitable one not just any dump, its not enough time, to work, arrange viewings and often compete with dozens of others for the same house.

    The very cheek of you Landlords saying most section 21’s are because the renter has in their little minds has done something wrong is crap, I and dozens I have spoken too tell me this is not the case.

    The private rental sector is vile & is not fit for purpose & when the renter the customer asks for changes to make renting more palatable you lot just shout us down like we are scum, you have to take a good hard look at your industry & decide if you would like to be a renter with the current insecure rental contracts.

    Would you expect you mortgage company to treat you this way, I doubt it .
  • no thankyou
    commented 2018-09-11 19:19:58 +0100
    Humm, I’m feeling at a lose end – perhaps I should evict my tenant who pays his rent on time, looks after my property, and gets on fine with the neighbours – for no reason other than being an evil landlord ……

    …oh wait, that would be stupid ! I’d have to find a new tenant (advertising and other tenancy set-up costs), could end up with a vacant property costing me £100’s per month, may end up with a mad axe murderer for a new tenant…. etc etc etc

    Read the other comments – landlords do not evict good tenants for no reason. There will be a fault by the tenant, but landlords cut their losses and go S21 to avoid endless months/years of further pain.
  • Mike Maunder
    commented 2018-07-01 15:59:01 +0100
    Very early in my life, I decided to be a home owner as I wanted the security of knowing that if the local Town Hall wanted my home, they would have to pay over the odds for it. Also the difference in rent to mortgage was not enough to warrant much thought.
    Those who have taken the course of renting, MUST have security of tenure, due to it being common sense in hand with common decency, and Lease requirement. Any Lease that is open in the matter of security of tenure should be thrown back at the Landlord with colourful comments !
  • Gill Howell
    commented 2018-07-01 08:13:22 +0100
    I’m medically retired after a long career in banking. I used to be a home owner but divorce meant that the property I’d lived in was sold and in any case it was completely unsuitable for me as my health and mobility have both massively deteriorated since it was bought. There was no equity as house prices in the area had plummeted. I rent privately and have been served with a section 21 notice as after two years in a property with no functioning heating or hot water, massive damp issues despite me constantly running a dehumidifier and ancient single glazed windows I had the temerity to finally report the property to the Local Authority. Two years of contacting the letting agent to try and get some repairs done got me nowhere. I’ve always paid my rent on time and get on well with all my neighbours even the lady who owns the holiday let upstairs from my hellhole.
    I now have just over four weeks to find somewhere else to live. The massive stress on top of the severe pain and other health issues is appalling. I’m liaising with the Local Authority but there’s a massive shortage of social housing and many properties are unsuitable for me as I need a bungalow or ground floor flat close to public transport as I am too unwell to drive and cannot climb stairs.
    Not all tenants are irresponsible, why should responsible, civilised people who pay their rent face being evicted?
  • Mark Platt
    followed this page 2018-06-24 18:44:08 +0100
  • Rohan Natashka Kon
    commented 2018-06-20 12:40:48 +0100
    It never fails to amaze me that every time an organisation tries to stand up for tenants the organised landlords come flooding in with their “poor me” tales. No one is forcing you to be a landlord. It is a business decision you have made to make more money. We often don’t have the choice of where we live, forcing many of us to pay all our money on rent, to live in squalor, with no security, knowing that our landlords can evict us at whim whenever they want. Families are being uprooted continually – is that the life you’d want for your children? Don’t kid yourselves, this is not a housing crisis for landlords it is a housing crisis for tenants. If most landlords are good, with tenants’ interests at heart, why is the first reaction of the landlord lobby always to rally against any legislation to improve the lives of tenants? This is not just your business opportunity, it’s our homes, where we live, where we go home after work and school every day. Do we not deserve to feel safe?
  • David Abbs
    commented 2018-06-19 00:04:22 +0100
    To say that “Evictions are the number 1 cause of homelessness” is muddle-headed. It is like saying that someone’s unemployment was caused by his dismissal. 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 – which is predominantly the behaviour of the tenant.

    Landlords like nothing better than to have long-term tenants as long as they pay the rent and treat the property and the neighbours.with respect.

    The use of the term “no fault” implies that there were no grounds for S 21 evictions, that the tenants had done nothing wrong and were therefore being victimised. But even theJoseph Rowntree Foundation’s report “Poverty, evictions and forced moves”acknowledged that S 21 is being used to evict tenants for rent arrears and for anti-social behaviour.

    The term “no fault” is deliberately misleading, to brainwash people into thinking that if S 21 is used the tenant cannot have been at fault.

    By the way, the same report showed that the rates of evictions from the PRS and the social sector were identical, at 4.7 tenants per thousand per year. That is less than 1 in 200, from either sector.

    “These ‘no fault evictions’ were introduced under section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act. Before this, private tenants had much greater security and it was much harder for landlords to evict tenants who paid the rent on time and looked after the property. ”

    Yes indeed, they could have tenancies for life. This, coupled with Rent Control from 1915 is what made the PRS shrink from housing 76% of households in England in 1918 to just 9.1% in 1988. Section 21 was introduced to give landlords the right to recover their property. This remedy worked. so that the percentage rose to 10.1 in 1996.

    From 1996 to 2013, the total number of dwellings in England increased steadily from 20.3 million in 1996 to 23.3 million in 2013. Much of this was due to the notable growth in private rented housing which more than doubled in size from 2.0 million to 4.5 million over this period.

    Landlords did this by financing new builds, by rehabilitating run-down properties or by converting large residential or commercial buildings into flats or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).

    Generation Rent owes BTL a debt of gratitude for this. Instead they vilify landlords because they have been indoctrinated against BTL by a number of ignorant people, some of whom get articles published in the Guardian and the Times.

    The abolition of Section 21 would reduce the supply of rental accommodation and make homelessness worse. It 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, would fall further while the population continues to increase. This would make rents rise even more, to the detriment of the tenants the writer claims to represent. It would also cause an increase in evictions as landlords leave.

    Generation Rent is campaigning to reduce supply and increase rents. Brilliant.
  • Rosalind Beck
    commented 2018-06-18 21:49:28 +0100
    Generation Rent has joined Shelter in being a supremely anti-landlord organisation. I believe it is fuelled by hatred of private landlords and is highly destructive. If it succeeds in doing all it can to tie landlords’ hands, make it impossible to regain possession of their property, to support Government tax levies which are leading to higher rents and to landlords leaving the market – these will all lead to a worse and smaller private rented sector. More rented housing is needed, not less, but these ignorant, ideologically-driven organisations are proposing policies which will only damage tenants’ lives. They don’t seem to care as long as they hurt landlords.
  • Susan Miller
    commented 2018-06-18 21:36:22 +0100
    Point 5 a Low risk investment, do you live on planet earth. There is so much red tape and tax it is anything but a low risk investment. Not to mention the thousands of pounds spent on repairs.

    Well lets see they wish to make it virtually impossible to get a tenant out on anti social behaviour .
    Anybody tenant or neighbour who has put up with a rogue tenant (yes they certainly exist in the real world)
    what about their rights to a peaceful live.
    They will have years of problems before a landlord will get the property back.

    What about the wasted police time and ambulances who visit at least twice a week due to being called out by neighbours .

    By the time you have evicted a rogue tenant with a S21 there will generally be 4000 worth of damage.

    The neighbours will think what a bad landlord keeping that tenant , well lets shout it loud and clear that the likes of shelter and G. Rent as been responsible for this.

    In your world you dont accept that anything can be a tenants thought.

    Perhaps do some research into how many times police get called out for anti social behaviour of tenants . Or how many deposits are paid out to landlords from the council for damages . Or the costs to landlords for rent arrears and propertu damage.

    Before you sign this petition look behind the glossed up headline.
  • James McKindley
    commented 2018-06-18 21:16:53 +0100
    So if you’re a tenant then just think for a moment. Sounds good doesn’t it – the removal of S21? Because of course landlords just evict people for no good reason. Only they don’t do they? So let me tell you about the last S21 I used which must be over 2 years ago now. Imagine you’re a tenant in a good quality HMO. You’re a hard working sort and you like where you live. It’s handy for work and not a bad area. Then things start to go wrong. One of your housemates who you’ve got on with fairly well, starts drinking more and more heavily. He’s a big bloke and you don’t want to upset him. But things just get worse. Not only has he now lost his job and drinks most of the day, but he has his friends round too and they like to party through the night. They start bringing hard drugs into the house and the atmosphere has got bad. They keep you awake most of the night and it’s affecting your work. No chance of a promotion now. You decide you have to talk to him and you try to pick a good moment. Unfortunately it’s never a good moment with this guy and he hits you. Then he hits you again and again. He’s drunk and you can defend yourself OK but this has gone way too far. So…. my question to you is how quickly would you like this guy gone? Fast or slow? It’s your choice. S21 isn’t fast but it’s a LOT quicker than S8. Which would you choose?
  • TheLandlordWhisperer
    commented 2018-06-18 20:36:00 +0100
    So much of the usual half-wit nonsense from GR. Only 7% of tenancies ended by landlords. Around half of this from S21. So 3.5% of all private tenancies ended this way. Social evict far more (64% of court hearings for eviction in fact), but I notice no one’s complaining about that!

    The other interesting aspect is that a landlord may use S21 to quietly evict for large rent arrears, or property damage, and be willing to let the tenant go scott-free. The idiots at GR are now demanding court hearings, CCJs, and presumably considerable additional stress to the tenant unnecessarily! This is great news in some ways. I often let tenants off large arrears (thousands), but without S21 I shall have to ENSURE they get a CCJ and thus damage their ability to ever get either another rental, or a mortgage. Well done GR!
  • Gromit
    commented 2018-06-18 20:21:43 +0100
    Why would a landlord evict a good tenant, unless selling up? Eviction is costly to a Landlord with void costs, refurb costs, new tenant advertising/ vetting costs and legal costs, but, although not necessarily the quickest, it gives certainty to all involved, which why it is used so often. So abolishing s.21 will not reduced evictions as other grounds will have to be used instead, but as these will increase costs then you’ll find some landlords exiting the market or increasing rents to cover the extra costs. Is this what Generation Rent want fewer available properties and higher rents for the remaining properties?

    Section 21 is only used when a tenant is in arrears, is abusing the property, or is antisocial, other grounds for evictions are full of loopholes which bad tenants exploit to put off eviction usually at the Landlords expense. Landlords do not evict good tenants!
  • notabad landlord
    commented 2018-05-25 10:39:07 +0100
    As a professional landlord, I support the majority of this (shock! horror!). I only ever evict a tenant if they are not paying or cause damage to the property.

    Here is the major problem – A section 8 “tenant’s fault” eviction can take far too long as Neil Robb portrays – Sometimes YEARS. The only current recourse is to issue a Section 21 “no fault eviction”, because it’s quicker.

    Scrapping Section 21 without improving Section 8 will lead to more bad non-paying tenants, professional landlord businesses going out of business, a rise in unscrupulous landlords taking up the market – Ultimately reducing the amount of quality properties and landlords available to tenants.

    So, I agree, but Section 8 needs urgent reform at the same time, to protect the good tenants.
  • Andy Brooker
    commented 2018-05-22 20:46:44 +0100
    I have never issued a section21 and hope I never do. However I have had tenants who never pay the December rent or a summer rent. Then have to be chased. Which can take years to catch up. A holiday isn’t a right it’s a luxury. Be a good tenant and the landlord will want you to stay.
  • Neil Robb
    commented 2018-05-22 18:07:49 +0100
    Really how misinformed this post is . Landlords are forced to use S21 as when they use Sec 8 for non payment or anti social behaviour it is discretionary and the judge may and often allows tenant time to stay on.
    If tenants where held to account for not paying rent and evicted quicker then less would try not paying giving them security.
    Some tenants play the game and it can take up to a year or more to evict. Yet if you stayed in a hotel and did not pay it would be classed as fraud. You cant take 8 months shopping from Tesco’s and not pay .
    Tenants steal items from property yet on many occasions police will try and do little and say it is a civil matter. No it is not it is theft.
    To deliberately damage a property is vandalism and criminal damage yet again police quite often reluctant to take action.
    These are some of the reasons a landlord use section 21 to ensure they can get a bad tenant out.
    Rarely do I meet a landlord who wants to evict a good tenant that looks after the property and pays rent. Yes it happens but not 63% that is roughly 1.2 million families/ homes evicted in 2016 where did that figure come from.
    What you are about to see is a lot of landlords no longer willing to rent homes out as it is not worth it very few landlords own more than 5 properties. most own one or two normally the second is inherited.
    The government introduced a policy call Section 24 this means landlords will no longer be taxed on turn over but profit. The money they pay the bank will be seen as profit.
    Imagine if all businesses were taxed on turn over not profit they would go bust. This is going to result in landlords selling up or raising rents to cover extra tax. If they don’t they will go bust.
    IN addition Universal credit is so unjust the way it treats claimant’s is causing many landlords not to risk renting to UC benefit claimant’s because there payments can be stopped and no warning giving and UC wont speak to landlords without a fight even when tenant gives permission..
  • maurice vidowsky
    commented 2018-05-22 15:27:42 +0100
    I totally agree section 21 is barbaric it is the root of all our problems with Renting and is a major cause of homelessness !