Abstract
The abolition of Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, scheduled for implementation in England following the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, represents one of the most significant reforms to private rented sector legislation in three decades. This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology to examine the anticipated impacts of this reform on landlord behaviour, tenant stability, and rent levels after May 2026. Drawing upon empirical evidence from analogous reforms in other jurisdictions, alongside analysis of the English housing context, this study identifies three principal findings. First, landlords will likely adopt more stringent tenant screening practices, potentially disadvantaging vulnerable households. Second, tenant stability should improve for those already housed, though access barriers may intensify for higher-risk applicants. Third, rent effects remain contingent upon broader supply and demand dynamics rather than the reform itself. The research concludes that while Section 21 abolition addresses a key mechanism of housing insecurity, complementary policy interventions will prove essential to prevent unintended consequences for the most vulnerable tenants seeking accommodation in an increasingly competitive rental market.
Introduction
The private rented sector in England has undergone profound transformation over the past two decades, expanding from accommodating approximately 10 per cent of households in 2000 to over 19 per cent by 2022 (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2022). This growth, often characterised as the emergence of “generation rent,” has brought renewed scrutiny to the legal framework governing landlord-tenant relationships, particularly regarding security of tenure. Central to this debate is Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, which permits landlords to recover possession of assured shorthold tenancies without demonstrating fault on the tenant’s part, commonly termed “no-fault evictions.”
The significance of Section 21 cannot be overstated. Government data indicates that Section 21 notices preceded approximately 80 per cent of landlord possession claims in county courts during 2019 (Ministry of Justice, 2020). This mechanism has been identified as a primary driver of homelessness, with Shelter reporting that no-fault evictions constituted the leading cause of statutory homelessness in England (Shelter, 2019). The precarity generated by this legislative provision extends beyond those directly evicted, creating what researchers have termed “ontological insecurity” among tenants who recognise their occupancy remains contingent upon landlord goodwill (Simcock and McKee, 2019).
The Renters’ Rights Act, building upon the earlier Renters (Reform) Bill, represents the government’s response to sustained advocacy for reform. By abolishing Section 21 and transitioning all tenancies to periodic agreements, the legislation fundamentally reconfigures the power dynamics within private tenancies. However, the precise implications of this reform remain contested, with landlord associations warning of unworkable conditions whilst tenant advocates argue the changes do not extend sufficiently far.
This dissertation matters academically because it contributes to theoretical understandings of how regulatory interventions shape housing market behaviour. From a social perspective, the reform directly affects the approximately 4.6 million households in private rented accommodation across England. Practically, understanding anticipated impacts enables policymakers, practitioners, and market participants to prepare for post-reform conditions and mitigate potential adverse consequences.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically analyse the anticipated impacts of Section 21 abolition on the English private rented sector following implementation in May 2026, with particular reference to landlord behaviour, tenant stability, and rent levels.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives have been established:
1. To examine evidence regarding how landlord investment decisions and tenant selection practices may change in response to reduced eviction flexibility.
2. To evaluate the extent to which Section 21 abolition will enhance security of tenure for different tenant populations, identifying which groups may benefit most and which may experience continued or intensified vulnerability.
3. To analyse the potential mechanisms through which the reform may influence rent levels, distinguishing between supply-side and demand-side effects.
4. To synthesise findings from analogous reforms in other jurisdictions to inform predictions about the English context.
5. To develop evidence-based recommendations for complementary policy interventions that may address identified limitations of Section 21 abolition.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology, systematically reviewing and integrating findings from peer-reviewed academic publications, government reports, and analyses from reputable policy organisations. This approach is appropriate given the forward-looking nature of the research question; as Section 21 abolition has not yet been implemented, primary empirical investigation of its effects is not possible. Instead, the study draws upon theoretical frameworks regarding landlord-tenant relations and empirical evidence from comparable regulatory interventions in other contexts.
The literature search strategy encompassed multiple academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using search terms combining “eviction,” “security of tenure,” “landlord behaviour,” “rent regulation,” and “housing reform.” Grey literature from government departments, including the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice, supplemented academic sources. International evidence was drawn primarily from the United States, where eviction moratoria during the COVID-19 pandemic generated substantial research, and from Spain and Catalonia, where recent rental reforms provide comparative insights.
The analytical framework employed draws upon housing economics theory, particularly regarding supply elasticity and landlord decision-making under regulatory constraints. Additionally, sociological perspectives on housing precarity and tenant vulnerability inform the interpretation of evidence regarding differential impacts across population groups.
Limitations of this methodology warrant acknowledgement. Literature synthesis necessarily relies upon the quality and scope of existing research, which may not directly address all aspects of the English context. Furthermore, predicting behavioural responses to policy changes involves inherent uncertainty, as market actors may respond in unexpected ways. These limitations are mitigated through triangulation across multiple sources and explicit acknowledgement of areas where evidence remains inconclusive.
Literature review
The regulatory context of Section 21
Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 introduced the assured shorthold tenancy as the default form of private rental agreement in England, fundamentally altering the balance between landlord flexibility and tenant security established under the Rent Act 1977 (Kemp, 2015). The provision permits landlords to serve notice requiring possession after a fixed term expires, without demonstrating any breach of tenancy conditions. This “no-fault” mechanism was designed to encourage private investment in rental housing by reducing landlord risk, thereby addressing chronic supply shortages (Cowan, 2011).
However, the consequences of this deregulatory approach have become increasingly apparent. Research has demonstrated that Section 21 has been a major driver of rising evictions in England, with its removal directly targeting a key mechanism of insecurity (Hardie, 2020). The ease of obtaining possession through Section 21 has been associated with retaliatory evictions following tenant complaints about property conditions, creating disincentives for tenants to assert their rights (Shelter, 2014).
Landlord responses to enhanced tenant protections
Evidence from both UK debates and analogous reforms elsewhere suggests several predictable shifts in landlord behaviour when eviction flexibility is constrained. Landlord organisations routinely argue that stronger tenant protections are “unworkable,” will shrink rental supply, and harm small landlords (Taylor, 2019; Hardie, 2020). These claims reflect genuine concerns about investment viability but must be contextualised within the political economy of housing advocacy.
Empirical evidence regarding supply effects remains contested. Vidal, Gil and Martínez (2024), examining rental reform debates in Catalonia and Spain, found that dominant discourses warning of supply contraction often lacked empirical foundation while serving to delegitimise tenant-protective measures. Their analysis revealed how “accommodating generation rent” rhetoric frequently prioritises market considerations over security needs. Nevertheless, some landlords will likely exit the sector or reduce holdings in response to perceived increases in regulatory burden and risk.
More robustly documented is the phenomenon of tighter screening and selectivity. When eviction becomes harder or slower, landlords tend to prefer tenants seen as “lower risk” with more secure income and fewer benefits dependencies (Subramaniam, 2019; Vidal, Gil and Martínez, 2024). This selectivity can disadvantage vulnerable groups, including those receiving Universal Credit, single-parent households, and individuals with previous housing difficulties. Research has identified systematic discrimination against benefit recipients in private lettings, a practice that may intensify when landlords perceive reduced ability to remove problematic tenancies (Shelter, 2018).
A further behavioural adaptation involves greater use of other legal grounds for possession. Where no-fault routes are constrained, landlords often pivot to arrears and fault-based processes (Garboden and Rosen, 2019). Significantly, research from the United States demonstrates that landlords may use repeated eviction filings as a rent-collection tool rather than to remove tenants, creating what scholars term “serial filing” behaviour (Garboden and Rosen, 2019). This finding has direct implications for England, where landlords will retain Section 8 grounds for possession, including mandatory grounds for rent arrears exceeding two months.
Tenant vulnerability and security outcomes
The principal justification for Section 21 abolition centres on reducing housing insecurity. Evidence strongly supports that Section 21 has contributed substantially to tenant precarity and homelessness in England. The removal of no-fault eviction should directly reduce arbitrary displacement, preventing situations where tenants face eviction despite fulfilling all tenancy obligations (Simcock and McKee, 2019).
However, analyses warn that the most vulnerable tenants may see little protection if landlords can still rely on fault-based grounds or pre-tenancy exclusion (Subramaniam, 2019). Those with rent arrears or benefits dependence may remain exposed to eviction through alternative mechanisms whilst simultaneously facing greater barriers to accessing new tenancies. This creates a paradoxical situation where reforms intended to enhance tenant security may primarily benefit those already in relatively secure positions.
Evidence from the United States eviction moratoria implemented during 2020-2021 provides instructive parallels. Tsai et al. (2022) found that temporary moratoria cut formal evictions but led some landlords to report strained relationships and to pursue other pressures on tenants. These informal displacement mechanisms, including harassment, failure to maintain properties, and pressure to vacate “voluntarily,” may prove difficult to address through legislative change alone.
Rent level effects of tenure security reforms
The relationship between tenant protections and rent levels involves multiple, potentially countervailing mechanisms. If supply falls due to landlord exits, upward pressure on rents would be expected, consistent with basic market principles (Taylor, 2019; Subramaniam, 2019). However, the magnitude of any supply contraction remains highly uncertain, and broader factors including interest rates, alternative investment returns, and housing demand exert substantially greater influence on landlord portfolio decisions.
Conversely, if turnover falls due to more stable tenancies, the effects on rent levels are mixed. Fewer re-lets at market rates may slow rent growth in tight areas, as sitting tenants paying below-market rents remain in place rather than vacating for new tenants charged higher amounts (Vidal, Gil and Martínez, 2024; Appel, Ferrer and Graziani, 2024). This “insider-outsider” dynamic may benefit existing tenants whilst disadvantaging new market entrants seeking accommodation.
International comparative perspectives
Comparative analysis reveals that security of tenure provisions vary substantially across jurisdictions, enabling assessment of different regulatory approaches. Germany’s tenancy law provides strong protections against arbitrary eviction whilst maintaining a substantial private rented sector, suggesting that tenant security and market provision need not be mutually exclusive (Kemp and Kofner, 2010). However, direct transplantation of regulatory models across different housing systems requires caution, as institutional contexts, tenure structures, and market conditions differ substantially.
The Spanish experience examined by Vidal, Gil and Martínez (2024) demonstrates how reform debates become sites of political contestation, with claims about market impacts often reflecting ideological positions rather than empirical assessment. Their critical discourse analysis reveals how tenant protective measures face systematic delegitimisation through appeals to economic rationality, even when supporting evidence is limited.
Discussion
Anticipated changes in landlord behaviour
The evidence synthesis indicates that landlord responses to Section 21 abolition will likely follow predictable patterns observed in comparable regulatory contexts. Investment behaviour will diverge, with some landlords reducing exposure to the private rented sector whilst others, particularly institutional investors with longer time horizons and professional management capacity, may increase market participation. Small landlords operating one or two properties, who currently comprise the majority of English landlords, appear most likely to exit given their limited capacity to absorb increased management complexity and risk.
Screening practices will almost certainly intensify, representing a rational economic response to reduced eviction flexibility. When landlords cannot easily remove tenants who subsequently prove problematic, they invest greater effort in identifying reliable tenants initially. This intensification has clear implications for meeting Objective 2, as differential impacts across tenant populations become apparent. Professional tenants with demonstrable income stability and positive references will likely experience improved security of tenure, whilst those with less conventional circumstances face heightened barriers to market entry.
The anticipated pivot toward fault-based possession proceedings merits particular attention. The Renters’ Rights Act strengthens Section 8 grounds whilst abolishing Section 21, creating incentives for landlords to establish tenancy breaches where possible. The research by Garboden and Rosen (2019) on serial filing suggests that eviction processes serve multiple functions beyond actual removal, including rent collection leverage and tenant discipline. English landlords may adopt similar strategic approaches, potentially increasing court system burdens whilst achieving similar displacement outcomes through alternative mechanisms.
Implications for tenant stability and access
Addressing Objective 2 directly, the evidence strongly supports that Section 21 abolition will enhance security of tenure for many existing tenants. Those currently accommodated in private rentals who maintain rent payments and comply with tenancy conditions will benefit from removal of the primary mechanism enabling arbitrary displacement. This represents a significant improvement in housing security for millions of households.
However, the research reveals a crucial distinction between security for existing tenants and access for prospective tenants. Subramaniam (2019) and others identify that the most vulnerable tenants may suffer most after Section 21 abolition, not because the reform worsens their legal position, but because it intensifies the selection pressures they already face. Single parents, benefit recipients, those with impaired credit histories, and individuals leaving institutional settings including prison or care face compounded disadvantage when landlords become more selective.
This finding has profound implications for homelessness prevention and housing pathway strategies. If vulnerable households cannot access private rented accommodation, pressure increases on social housing, temporary accommodation, and informal arrangements including sofa surfing and overcrowded sharing. The evidence from US moratoria indicating that landlords pursue informal pressures when formal routes are constrained suggests that some tenants may experience displacement through mechanisms that do not register in official statistics (Tsai et al., 2022).
Rent level analysis
Addressing Objective 3, the analysis indicates that rent effects depend primarily on broader supply and demand dynamics rather than this reform alone. The theoretical channels through which Section 21 abolition might influence rents point in opposing directions, and their relative magnitudes cannot be determined with confidence in advance of implementation.
Supply-side effects, if landlord exit proves substantial, would generate upward pressure on rents, particularly in areas with already-constrained supply. However, the evidence from other jurisdictions reviewed by Vidal, Gil and Martínez (2024) suggests that claims about supply contraction frequently prove exaggerated in practice. Landlords threatening exit may respond to multiple factors, with regulatory change providing convenient attribution for decisions driven by interest rate changes, taxation, or alternative investment opportunities.
Demand-side effects operating through reduced turnover may actually moderate rent growth in some areas. If sitting tenants remain in place rather than moving, landlords cannot achieve rent increases through new lettings at market rates. This mechanism particularly affects high-demand areas where the gap between sitting tenant rents and new market lettings is greatest. Appel, Ferrer and Graziani (2024) identify this dynamic as generating “insider-outsider” divisions within tenant populations, where those already housed benefit at the expense of those seeking accommodation.
Comparative insights and policy implications
Meeting Objective 4, the synthesis of international evidence provides important lessons for the English context. The US moratorium experience demonstrates both the potential for formal eviction reductions and the risk of landlord adaptation through alternative channels (Tsai et al., 2022). This suggests that monitoring and enforcement mechanisms will prove essential to ensuring that Section 21 abolition achieves intended tenant protection outcomes rather than merely displacing landlord behaviour into less visible forms.
The Spanish experience analysed by Vidal, Gil and Martínez (2024) highlights the importance of resisting rhetorical delegitimisation of tenant-protective measures. Claims that reforms are “unworkable” or will destroy rental supply serve political functions irrespective of empirical validity. Policymakers and advocates must maintain focus on evidence regarding actual outcomes rather than predicted catastrophes that may not materialise.
Recommendations for complementary interventions
Addressing Objective 5, the analysis generates several recommendations for policy measures that may address identified limitations of Section 21 abolition:
First, anti-discrimination provisions specifically prohibiting rejection of tenants on grounds of benefit receipt should be strengthened and actively enforced. The current approach relying on general equality provisions has proven insufficient to address systematic exclusion of benefit recipients from private lettings.
Second, the court system must be adequately resourced to handle Section 8 possession proceedings efficiently. Excessive delays in legitimate possession cases may incentivise landlord behaviour that undermines the reforms’ objectives, whilst also failing tenants who would benefit from clear resolution of their housing position.
Third, expanded social housing provision and other alternatives to private renting would reduce the stakes of private rental market access, providing options for those unable to compete successfully for private tenancies under intensified selection pressures.
Fourth, monitoring systems should track not only formal eviction outcomes but also informal displacement, refused applications, and access barriers to provide comprehensive assessment of reform impacts.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined the anticipated impacts of Section 21 abolition on landlord behaviour, tenant stability, and rent levels following implementation in May 2026. Through literature synthesis drawing upon evidence from the English context and comparable international reforms, the research has achieved its stated objectives whilst identifying important limitations and areas requiring further investigation.
Regarding Objective 1, the evidence indicates that landlord investment decisions will diverge, with some exit and others adapting through intensified screening practices. Small landlords appear most vulnerable to exit, whilst institutional investors with greater management capacity may increase participation. Tenant selection will become more rigorous, representing rational economic responses to reduced eviction flexibility.
Concerning Objective 2, Section 21 abolition will enhance security of tenure for many existing tenants who maintain rent payments and tenancy compliance. However, the most vulnerable households, including benefit recipients and those with impaired housing histories, may experience continued or intensified barriers to market access even as security for the already-housed improves.
Addressing Objective 3, rent effects remain contingent upon broader market dynamics. Supply-side pressures from potential landlord exit may generate upward pressure, whilst demand-side effects from reduced turnover may moderate rent growth in some areas. The net effect cannot be determined with confidence and will likely vary geographically.
Meeting Objective 4, international evidence confirms both the potential benefits of enhanced tenant protections and the risk of landlord adaptation through alternative mechanisms including informal displacement pressures and strategic use of fault-based proceedings.
Finally, addressing Objective 5, complementary interventions including strengthened anti-discrimination enforcement, court system resourcing, expanded housing alternatives, and comprehensive monitoring systems appear essential to realising the reforms’ full potential whilst mitigating identified risks.
The significance of this research extends beyond immediate policy application. Theoretically, the analysis contributes to understanding how regulatory interventions shape housing market behaviour and how tenant protections interact with landlord commercial interests. The identification of insider-outsider dynamics, whereby reforms benefit those already accommodated whilst potentially disadvantaging those seeking access, reveals important limitations of tenancy-focused interventions in addressing broader housing inequality.
Future research should track actual outcomes following implementation, enabling assessment of whether predicted landlord adaptations materialise and whether tenant stability improves as anticipated. Longitudinal analysis of tenant populations, examining both those housed and those seeking accommodation, would provide comprehensive evidence regarding distributional impacts. Comparative research across English local authorities with differing market conditions would illuminate geographical variation in reform effects. Finally, qualitative investigation of landlord decision-making processes would provide granular insight into how regulatory change translates into market behaviour.
After May 2026, Section 21 abolition is most likely to improve security for many existing tenants but intensify access problems for higher-risk households, with rent impacts depending mainly on broader supply and demand rather than this reform alone. Achieving the legislation’s objectives of a fairer private rented sector will require sustained attention to implementation, enforcement, and complementary policy development.
References
Appel, H., Ferrer, A. and Graziani, T. (2024) ‘Tenants of the World, Unite! From Atomisation to Structural Power in Financialised Tenancy’, *Antipode*. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.13073
Cowan, D. (2011) *Housing Law and Policy*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garboden, P. and Rosen, E. (2019) ‘Serial Filing: How Landlords use the Threat of Eviction’, *City & Community*, 18(4), pp. 638-661. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12387
Hardie, I. (2020) ‘The Impact of Universal Credit Rollout on Housing Security: An Analysis of Landlord Repossession Rates in English Local Authorities’, *Journal of Social Policy*, 50(2), pp. 225-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279420000021
Kemp, P.A. (2015) ‘Private Renting After the Global Financial Crisis’, *Housing Studies*, 30(4), pp. 601-620.
Kemp, P.A. and Kofner, S. (2010) ‘Contrasting Varieties of Private Renting: England and Germany’, *International Journal of Housing Policy*, 10(4), pp. 379-398.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2022) *English Housing Survey 2021-22*. London: MHCLG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/english-housing-survey
Ministry of Justice (2020) *Mortgage and Landlord Possession Statistics: January to March 2020*. London: Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mortgage-and-landlord-possession-statistics-january-to-march-2020
Shelter (2014) *Safe and Decent Homes: Solutions for a Better Private Rented Sector*. London: Shelter.
Shelter (2018) *Stop DSS Discrimination: Ending Prejudice Against Renters on Housing Benefit*. London: Shelter.
Shelter (2019) *Generation Homeless: The Numbers Behind the Story*. London: Shelter. Available at: https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research
Simcock, T. and McKee, K. (2019) ‘Landlords will be forbidden from evicting tenants for no reason – but reform has only just begun’, *The Conversation*.
Subramaniam, P. (2019) ‘Most Vulnerable Tenants May Suffer Most After Scrappage of Section 21’.
Taylor, S. (2019) ‘Section 21 Scrappage Not Workable, Landlord Association Claims’.
Tsai, J., Huang, M., Blosnich, J. and Elbogen, E. (2022) ‘Evictions and tenant-landlord relationships during the 2020-2021 eviction moratorium in the US’, *American Journal of Community Psychology*. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12581
Vidal, L., Gil, J. and Martínez, M. (2024) ‘Accommodating “generation rent”: Unsettling dominant discourses on rental housing reform in Catalonia and Spain’, *Urban Studies*, 61(11), pp. 2060-2079. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241228438
