By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Section 21 U-turn - more details given by government

More details have emerged of what appears to be a sort of stay of execution for Section 21 eviction powers.

The abolition of Section 21 was arguably the centrepiece of the Renters Reform Bill, which has its Second Reading in the House of Commons this afternoon.

On Friday it emerged that Section 21 would still be be abolished but only when improvements were made to the way courts handle legitimate possession cases. 


Now we know what those improvements will consist of - and they appear to be substantial improvements which would take some time to introduce.

Digitising more of the court process to make it simpler and easier for landlords to use;

Exploring the prioritisation of certain cases including antisocial behaviour; 

Improving bailiff recruitment and retention and reducing administrative tasks so bailiffs can prioritise possession enforcement; and 

Providing early legal advice and better signposting for tenants including to help them find a housing solution that meets their needs.

Strengthening mediation and dispute resolution as a way for landlords to settle problems without resort to courts, and to “embed this as a member service of the new Ombudsman” - the latter being something all landlords must join, in addition to professional property agents.

The government has firmly rejected the call from many experts in the lettings industry for a dedicated housing court, saying its costs would outweigh its benefits. The government insists it would be more effective to channel resources into improving existing court capacity and processes.

These details come on a response from government to a report from the House of Commons Housing Select Committee.*

The release of the response so close to the Second Reading may be interpreted by some as a concession to defuse growing opposition to the Bill by the property industry, landlords and some politicians.

In perhaps the most clear cut sentences in the response, the government confirms that implementation of any alternative process for repossessing properties“will not take place until we judge sufficient progress has been made to improve the courts.” 

It continues: “That means we will not proceed with the abolition of section 21, until reforms to the justice system are in place.”

In addition the government has agreed to establish a new ground to repossess properties to protect the yearly nature of the student housing market. 

The government has said it will “introduce a ground for possession that will facilitate the yearly cycle of short-term student tenancies” which “will enable new students to sign up to a property in advance, safe in the knowledge they will have somewhere to live the next year.”

The Second Reading of the Renters Reform Bill takes place in the Commons late this afternoon. 

* You can find the full letter from the government to the Select Committee here - it's important to note that the recommendations are from the committee, which does not set policy, and the responses are from the government.

  • icon

    In fairness, it's not really a U-turn and rather a delay as industry had universally said due to the court process, the RRB was unworkable. The shock headline should be 'Government listened'.

  • icon

    A clever way of getting rid of this absurd change the reforms listed stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of being implemented


    Not really. One of 2 things will happen. They will make provisions in the Bill to reflect this new policy, or Labour will pick up the ball. I know which I would prefer....

  • icon

    Wait till Polly starts putting pressure on the government. If they can change their mind once, they can change it again. I don’t trust this government to act in landlords’ interests and I certainty don’t trust Labour.


    I no longer trust politicians... Love Actually was on last night, and I almost wish we had that Prime Minister...

  • icon

    If I rent something ( car or cement mixer) and then do not pay the owner can take it back without much fuss or court action. Why not the same for houses or maybe I should only issue licences to occupy


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up