Thread by @nearlylegal

Initial thoughts on the proposal to end s.21/no fault evictions.
Is it do-able? Yes, certainly.
Is it complicated? Also yes.

Will it need changes/additions to the Housing Act 1988 Schedule 2 grounds? - Very likely. The availability of s.21 has covered up for the limitations of the schedule 2 grounds. The Govt appears to be looking at Scotland where two new grounds for possession were introduced -

Landlord intends to sell the property, and
Landlord or member of their family wants to live in the property.
As the potential for abuse of these grounds is clear, any such new grounds (and their evidential requirements) would need to be carefully considered.

While on section 8/Schedule 2, the suggestion that "ministers will amend the Section 8 eviction process" might sound alarm bells. The 'problems' with the section 8 process, from a landlord's position are i) that they have to actually evidence things (rent arrears etc) and -

ii) that the court process can be slow. Now ii) is primarily an issue of court resources, unless you are heading into the dangerous territory of, say, removing requirements for a hearing, and changing i) is dangerous, as an eviction on grounds must require evidence of the ground.

While there could be some procedural tweaks, any move to 'amend the process' will again need very careful consideration, as these are basic issues of justice being done. Likewise, any move to make grounds 'simpler' carries significant potential risks.

(Remember that any changes to Schedule 2 grounds may also affect Housing Association assured tenants. The knock-on effects need to be held in mind.)

And then, there are the 'spin-off' issues of scrapping s.21. Currently, 'not being able to serve a s.21 notice' is the punishment for failing to meet a broad range of requirements. Failing to properly protect a deposit, failing to provide the tenant with an EPC, -

failing to provide the tenant with a 'How to Rent' booklet, failing to provide the tenant with a gas safety certificate, failing to licence an HMO where required, and as of 1 June, failing to return a 'prohibited payment' under the Tenant Fees Act. New penalties will be needed.

Lastly (for now), as has been observed, indefinite tenure means that the issue of rent rises needs to be considered. The current procedure for appealing a rent rise to the First Tier Tribunal (where 'excessive') would have to be changed for starters (see england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice… )

It seems inevitable that on 'indefinite' tenancies, landlords are more likely to rely on contractual rent review clauses than on the section 13 notice procedure. But either way, large rent increases would be another way to abuse the security of tenure.

LL demands a huge rent rise to drive out the tenant (even if it was never a rent that the market would reasonably bear). Changing the FTT rent appeal process to allow an appeal of 'excessive' rent at any point would be one thing to do, but...

the question of 'within tenancy' rent limitation is also most definitely out there.

Simply ending s.21 is not effective if it can easily be bypassed...

(Oh and housing associations will have to come up with a different way of doing 'starter' tenancies.)