← Back to News
Industry bodies upset over eviction law proposal
Two landlord bodies have separately set out their objections at the latest attempt to outlaw so-called ‘revenge evictions’.
The Residential Landlords’ Association say the latest legal bid – taking the form of an amendment to the Deregulation Bill currently going through Parliament – risks stunting the only part of the housing market that is growing.
A government amendment to the Deregulation Bill, due to be debated in the House of Lords on Wednesday, raises the prospect of landlords being unable to swiftly remove tenants who are failing to pay their rent or committing anti-social behaviour.
Under the amendment, landlords would be barred from issuing a notice to remove a tenant – a Section 21 notice – when a tenant makes a written complaint to the landlord about conditions in a property. The RLA says this would make it almost impossible for a landlord to regain possession of their property if the tenant is committing anti-social behaviour or failing to pay their rent at the same time.
The amendment would also become a lawyer’s charter given the difficulties in establishing if a landlord’s response to a tenant complaint is or is not adequate, the association claims.
The amendment follows a previously failed attempt to introduce a Retaliatory Evictions Bill in the Commons.
The RLA says that while it condemns any attempts by landlords to engage in retaliatory evictions, it also claims that the proposed legislation is not necessary as sufficient laws already exist to protect tenants. Instead, what is proposed could have damaging potential consequences.
“Our survey of landlords last year underlined the fact that landlords are very reluctant to evict their tenants and when they do it’s usually for significant rent arrears or anti-social behaviour” says RLA chairman Alan Ward.
Meanwhile the National Landlords Association is also critical of the proposal.
“We have yet to see any credible evidence of a problem significant to justify the need for additional legislation and we strongly believe that the changes announced represent a politically timed reaction to fear and anecdote, rather than a confirmation of commonplace poor practice within private housing” says Chris Norris, NLA head of policy.
“At best this is will be a burdensome nuisance for the majority of good landlords. At worst it will further mask the actions of criminals who abuse their tenants, while regulators struggle to differentiate between those in genuine need and vexatious troublemakers. It will give unscrupulous tenants and ambulance-chasing legal firms more power to resist genuine and necessary attempts on behalf of landlords to regain lawful possession on a property” he says.
