The homelessness charity Shelter has once again called for the extension of the ‘no re-letting’ period following tenant evictions to 12 months, to avoid landlords taking advantage of potential loopholes for unfair evictions in the system.
This statement was made after the Renters Reform Bill was put through its second reading, one of its key elements proposed being the abolition of section 21 ‘no-fault evictions’.
The proposed bill currently stipulates that a landlord would have to wait for three months to put a property back onto the letting market — however, Shelter said this timeframe “leaves room for exploitation” and that a 12-month ban on re-letting would disincentivise landlords from misusing the system.
The charity also emphasised the need for a high evidence threshold for landlords to meet, and punitive fines for those that misrepresent evidence when repossessing a property under section 21 evictions.
“Scrapping section 21 evictions will be foundational to reforming the PRS, but the government must ensure that loopholes for unfair evictions are not opened up when the Renters Reform Bill comes into effect,” said Shelter in its statement.
Industry experts have given their verdict on what a 12-month extension would mean for the BTL market.
Nathan Emerson, CEO at Propertymark, said: “[We are] concerned that a 12-months ‘no re-letting period’ would further disincentivise more landlords to enter the market and create more availability, at a time when we should be encouraging [them].
“So long as the intention behind recovering a property is genuine, we believe the current three-month period will be a considerable burden for landlords whose circumstances have genuinely changed.
“To then suggest a property should then stay vacant for 12 months will not only act as a clear disincentive to landlords investing, but, more sadly for tenants, it will increase the amount of homelessness and increase rents further still, as much-needed supply is effectively stood empty for a 12-month period at a time when we need maximum availability.”
Roger Morris, director of sales and distribution at Tandem Bank, gave his opinion as a landlord: “It's important to recognise that a privately-owned BTL property can indeed be an individual landlord's only asset, and they might not be operating as a listed business or a charity.
“In such cases, it's essential to acknowledge their right to make decisions about their property based on their unique circumstances.
“Life can be complex, and situations evolve — therefore, imposing a 12-month restriction on a landlord's ability to let out their property may seem unreasonable and illogical in certain situations.
“It's crucial to strike a balance between the interests of property owners and the regulations in place to ensure fairness and compliance.”
Narinder Gill, associate at Coreco, stated: “It is important that the government uphold the protection of tenants — extending the time period to re-let a property under section 21 would go a long way in doing so.
“We must ensure that landlords make moves within the spirit of the act and in the best interests of tenants, particularly those who are vulnerable.”
