Vice Chair of the High Court Enforcement Officers Association, Michael Jackson, looks at the potential impact of the proposed abolition of no-fault evictions.
Following Labour’s victory in the 2024 general election we are all eagerly awaiting updates on its “immediate” abolition of Section 21 (no fault) evictions as outlined in its manifesto. With the Renter’s Reform Bill dropped in the lead up to the last election, it may be some time before we see any changes as the new Government decides on how it will approach the legislation.
The abolition of Section 21 evictions is a step forward for tenants’ rights, which should absolutely be protected.
However, it draws into sharp focus the prolonged delays faced by many landlords in England and Wales who are facing challenges and delays when they try to recover their property through the UK justice system when the tenant is at fault.
Under the current system, landlords encountering issues with tenants are often waiting over eight months to resecure their properties with a Section 8 eviction, in which they must give a valid reason for pursuing enforcement action. This can include things like unpaid rent, damage to the property, breach or expiry of lease, amongst others. However, the court process following the expiry of the notice period currently can take up to five or more months due to the court delays, before being granted a Possession Order.
Of course, landlords do have the option to transfer their evictions up to the High Court for enforcement via a leave to transfer (Section 42). This can be initiated at the same time as the application for the Possession Order which can speed up the process slightly, or as a separate application once the Possession Order has been granted.
While this does not alleviate wait times while the case goes through the County Courts, it can allow swifter enforcement once the leave to transfer has been granted. Whether this is permitted or not is through the discretion of the County Court Judge as to whether there is a justifiable reason for the transfer.
Not only are these delays barring access to justice for landlords, but they are also extremely costly. When you factor in loss of rental earnings and court costs, as well as any mortgage repayments upkept during this time and future repair costs for damage, the financial impact on landlords is particularly discouraging.
Anticipated impacts and challenges
The process of securing enforcement through a Section 8 via both the County Court and transfer to the High Court is at present unjust and disappointing with the time taken to get to the stage of a judgment.
While there is no shortage of tenants looking for properties to rent, without adequate legal recourse more landlords may choose to leave the sector and decrease their portfolios, leading to pressure on the rental stock market which in turn would create less availability and higher rent for tenants in the long term.
Expediting access to justice
While it is paramount that tenants’ rights are safeguarded, it’s equally important that landlord redress is carried out in a timely manner, with no undue delays to enforcement where it is authorised and needed.
Landlords need quicker access to justice through the courts and eviction process. Empowering landlords with the freedom to choose High Court enforcement as part of their Section 8 application and not as a separate transfer process to the High Court could alleviate some of the pressure on County Court Bailiffs and reduce eviction times for all involved.
This could be done simply by adding a tick box to the Possession application process, or at the granting of the order stage, for landlords who wish to apply for a leave to transfer to the High Court. This would eliminate the further Section 42 application needed for the leave to transfer and would not be contingent on the digitisation of court processes.
Although this would not impact the current delays in obtaining a Section 8 Possession Order, it would remove the additional time needed to transfer cases to the High Court and allow High Court Enforcement Officers to support landlords with faster enforcement action than they currently receive through the County Court once the order has been granted.
The eviction process is the same through either system, whether landlords choose to transfer would be a personal choice based on the speed, service and cost for their evictions, which like the County Court Bailiff are paid for by the landlord rather than the tenant.
Giving landlords the option to choose High Court enforcement from the outset of their Possession Orders could alleviate some of the current delays in the County Courts, allowing County Court Bailiffs more time and resources for the cases that don’t choose to transfer.
Whether we see the withdrawal of Section 21 evictions or not, it is clear that landlords need urgent support from government in cases where tenants are clearly at fault, with swifter access to justice through the courts and enforcement and a more equitable resolutions process.
