x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button
award
award award
award award

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Second law firm hits out at government Section 21 proposals

Another law firm has sharply criticised the government’s proposals to abolish Section 21 eviction powers for landlords.

Devonshires says the government should exempt social housing from its plans, and it has warned that the proposals could also have the unintended effect of reducing the supply of homes for rent, whether in the private rented sector or those offered by social housing providers.

In its response to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) consultation on the S21 proposals, Devonshires warn: “The proposals fail to adequately guarantee that landlords would be able to regain possession in an efficient manner.”

The response says that given that the government has yet to decide on whether to establish a Housing Court, and did not pledge any further investment in the courts in last month’s Spending Round. Further, HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s modernisation project for possession proceedings has not yet even begun.

“Notwithstanding the lack of funding, courts are already full of complex and lengthy proceedings involving housing issues. These proposals would only serve to exacerbate that.”

The firm says that it already takes “an inordinate period of time” to conclude legal proceedings.

“This means longer delays and more pressure on an already over-worked court system. No proposals have, as yet, been made to deal with that.”

Devonshires is concerned about the unintended consequences of these proposals, for example the loss of starter tenancies which are a useful tool for tackling anti-social behaviour and the potential impact on Private Sector Leasing Schemes – which provide housing options for the homelessness sector – where landlords may not be able to recover possession easily and swiftly.

Devonshires says the proposals will make it more costly for landlords to recover possession as well. 

“This means an increase in legal budgets which, in turn, results in less money to expend on other projects including development and new homes being built. Overall the proposals could threaten the supply of homes for rent, in both the private and social sector.”

Nick Billingham a partner and head of Housing Management and Property Litigation at Devonshires, says: “There is concern that the proposals may limit the supply of homes – for example, if PRPs are not exempt, then the loss of starter tenancies may mean they will be less willing to take a chance on nominees from local authorities whose history suggests they may not be able to sustain a long-term tenancy.”

“It would result in the incongruous position that a tenant of a local authority, who should have the highest degree of security of tenure, actually having the lowest because of a local authority’s ability to offer an introductory tenancy, for example.” This is a one-year trial tenancy where it is much easier to evict the tenant than usual.

Billingham adds: “The reality is that the government needs to sort out the court system before it contemplates reform – all the rights in the world are of no use, for landlord and tenant alike, if they cannot be enforced in an effective, timely and cost-efficient way.” 

Yesterday Letting Agent Today reported that Osbornes Law - another legal company - has voiced its opposition to the government proposals. 

  • icon

    All obvious stuff but falling on deaf ears

  • Bryan Shields

    James B, not deaf exactly = (Shelter & Citizens Advice), who have allways known our PRS businessbetter than folk whom spend their lives in the depth of this complicated area & strive to stay sane & profitable.

  • Paul Barrett

    Can you imagine Shelter or the CAB operating as private LL!!!??
    They would be bankrupt within a week so lacking in business acumen and understanding are they.

  • icon

    But Tenant groups should ' walk a mile in Landlords shoes, before criticising '

    Paul Barrett

    Trouble is they have an ideology that would prefer the PRS not to exist.
    They have a Communist mindset and so aren't really interested in a vibrant responsive and good PRS.
    Their bonkers ideology will alway triumph to them over practicality
    98% of LL provide a good service the remainder don't..
    So work to get rid of those but not the 98%!!!

    Surely working with rather than against the PRS would result in improved standards.

    But I'm sorry when you have the likes of Shelter and GR supporting the ridiculous S24 policy then they have become scum to me.
    I will not engage with an alleged charity which is trying to drive me out of business and will probably succeed!😢

     
    S l
    • S l
    • 20 October 2019 09:55 AM

    Hi Paul, in that case, boycott the companies that give donations to cab and shelter eg nationwide building society etc etc

     
icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up