Issue - meetings

Report CSD19124

Members of the PDS Committee considered a motion which had been referred from a meeting of the full Council on 8 April 2019.

The motion (moved by Councillor Kathy Bance and seconded by Councillor Josh King) called on the Government to abolish Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 which allowed landlords to evict tenants without having to establish any fault on the part of the tenant.

Visiting Member Councillor Bance confirmed there would be no cost to the Council in making its position clear to the Government but if the motion was rejected, the Council would fail in its duty to support vulnerable residents.  Agreeing the Motion would fulfil Members’ role as Councillors.  If the Government decided to end the Section 21 Act and strengthen the Section 8 Act, residents would not be thrown into crisis and whilst landlords could still take back their properties, it would be within a slightly longer timeframe.  Many landlords used the Section 21 Act as a means of selling properties from under tenants’ feet.  In so doing, the tenant’s housing benefit would cease whilst Council Tax still had to be paid, leaving the tenant to undergo weeks of uncertainty waiting for bailiffs to knock at their door.  Alternative accommodation was rarely offered until an eviction took place.  Private landlords should be forced to use fixed-term agreements as should housing associations.  This could be done by amending the Section 8 Agreement.

The Chairman moved that further work be carried out on this matter as there were no particular details within the report to assist Councillors in understanding the impact generally on Bromley residents.

Whilst fully understanding Councillor Bance’s concern for residents, Councillor Stevens was cautious about forcing landlords to use fixed-term agreements as this could lead them to cease renting their properties.

Councillor King spoke in support of agreeing the motion.  Section 21 had already been abolished in Scotland and a more balanced system existed in Germany.  As there was little available social housing stock in Bromley, the Council relied heavily on the private rental sector.  Agreeing the motion was a reasonable recommendation to follow.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Committee that he owned and let a number of small properties to some tenants who had occupied the properties for years without any problem. He had never had an occasion to evict anyone.  In the majority, landlords only wanted their properties back due to issues with bad tenants.  Whilst he agreed that fixed term contracts were good, the resulting restrictions on landlords not being able to remove bad tenants could deter them from renting in future.  On this basis, Councillor Morgan wished to see further research undertaken.

Councillor Sharma seconded the motion that further work be carried out.

RESOLVED that further work be carried out on this matter.