Levelling-Up Committee Chair urges Government not to “kick the can down the road” on ‘no fault evictions’ ban

The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) Committee has accused ministers of seeking to deflect blame for the delays in implementing the abolition of 'no fault evictions' away from the Government and toward the Committee.

In October the Government confirmed in its response to the select committee’s report, Reforming the Private Rented Sector, on the Renters (Reform Bill) that it would delay commencement of the ban on section 21 no-fault evictions “until stronger possession grounds and a new court process is in place”.

In a letter sent to Levelling-Up Secretary Michael Gove, this week (8 November), LUHC Committee Chair Clive Betts MP took issue with comments made by ministers on 23 October, during the debate on the Second Reading of the Renters (Reform) Bill.

Betts highlighted Gove’s Parliamentary speech where the Secretary of State said: “There were a series of recommendations in the report, upon which we have acted. [...] it is the case that we will ensure that the justice system, which is controlled by the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, is fit for purpose before we move ahead with some of the reforms in the Bill.”

The LUHC Chair also highlighted later comments in the debate made by the Minister for Housing and Planning, Rachel Maclean, to the effect that the Government had “always committed to aligning and synchronising the reform of the private rented sector with the court system; we note that that was a recommendation of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee”.

Betts wrote: “My Committee feels strongly that this is a mischaracterisation of the Committee’s recommendation and an attempt by the Minister for Housing and Planning to deflect blame for these delays away from the Government and toward the Committee. We feel doubly strongly about this given the significant delay the Government itself had in responding to the Committee’s Report.”

In his letter he acknowledged that the Committee did warn the Government that “an unreformed courts system could undermine its tenancy reforms” and advised that “it is absolutely essential that the government significantly increase the courts’ ability to process possession claims quickly and efficiently and in a way that is fair to both landlords and tenants”.

However, Betts added that “at no point did we recommend an indefinite delay to the abolition of section 21 as the way to solve this challenge”.

The letter then highlighted the Report having made two recommendations instead - first to introduce a specialist housing court (which the Government did not accept following consultation with the judiciary) and second to agree how quickly the courts need to be processing possession claims and then committing to meeting this target before abolishing section 21. Betts accused the Government of ignoring this recommendation in its response and during the Parliamentary debate.

Betts then expressed the Committee’s’ considerable concern regarding the refusal to provide any target or timeline for when the reforms to the court system will allow the legislation to be enacted.

The Government has additionally not clarified which of the many proposals for court reform laid out in the White Paper A Fairer Private Rented Sector it believes must be implemented before section 21 can be abolished, nor has it said how long it expects these reforms to take, Betts added.

The letter highlighted the lack of any timeline for implementation as a cause for concern that section 21 abolition might be indefinitely delayed.

Betts added that recent improvements in the speed of possession – highlighted during the debate by fellow committee member Natalie Elphicke MP (Conservative) – indicated that court processing times had already improved significantly since the Committee’s original inquiry took evidence in 2022.

“Therefore, the legal system may already be in a position to effectively implement the provisions of the Bill,” the LUHC Committee Chair wrote.

He also cited the Ministry of Justice’s latest mortgage and landlord possession statistics which showed:

• A median time of 7.6 weeks between landlords marking repossession claims and court orders being issued in Q2 of 2023, a 65% reduction from Q2 2021;
• The median time for warrants to be issued has dropped from 32.0 weeks in Q1 of 2021 to 13.7 weeks, which is in line with the equivalent quarters in 2019 (13.6 weeks) and 2018 (13.7 weeks).

Betts concluded: “The Government has had four years to ensure the legal system is fit to handle the consequences of the abolition of section 21. It is therefore difficult for us to understand the Government’s lack of urgency and transparency around court reforms. I re-iterate the request I made during the debate for the Government to provide a timetable for the abolition of section 21.”

On the publication of the letter, the LUHC Committee Chair said: “The Government should be getting on with ensuring courts can fast-track claims rather than kicking the can down the road on private rental reform and seeking to make flimsy excuses for it delaying introducing the provision to ban ‘no fault’ evictions.”

Harry Rodd