Charities claim Section 21 ‘No-Fault’ evictions fuel rising homelessness

An inevitable consequence of the war on landlords. What did they think would happen?

I've been a landlord for 20 years. In all that time I have only ever issued one Section 21 (and that was concurrent with a Section 8).
No landlord wants a void. No landlord wants to have to find a new tenant. In the vast majority of cases the cause of homelessness is not the Section 21, but the reason behind the issuance of the Section 21, which is usually either non-payment of rent or to terminate a fixed contract where the tenant has declined to conditions to renew.
To really set the cat amongst the pigeons, Housing Departments should class anyone rejecting a new tenancy as having made themselves intentionally homeless, unless they can prove that the rent increase was extortionate.

Once section 21 is removed we will find section 8 to be the leading reason for homelessness.
I'm not sure what organisations like Shelter will say once the reasons for eviction are public record along with the inevitable CCJ's in these circumstances.

I agree, very few landlords use s.21 to evict tenants without a very good reason.
Of course if you ask the tenant why they were evicted you will receive a very different answer which explains the propaganda put out by naive anti landlord institutions.

"Rent Reforms Good, Section 21 Bad" pronounced Generation Pig as he took control of the farmhouse from the nasty capitalist landlord. "We shall all have warm dry stys and not wet damp mouldy ones"

"Here Here " bleated Major Neate. Soon every animal will be equal and there will be fit for purpose Shelter for all"

And we all know how that book ended....

What happens to properties when tenants are evicted?

If they are sold to an owner-occupier or to a new landlord then there is NO IMPACT on homelessness.

Homelessness is caused by uncontrolled net migration. Why don’t they just admit it?

Section 21 does not require explaining to anyone or courts why a Landlords needs to evict a tenant, However there is always a good reason behind using a Section 21 instead of Section 8. Since Section 8 requires a good solid evidence for any reason. Some of these are
1. Rent not being paid regularly on time.
2.Falling behind on rent
3.Failing to comply with AST terms
4.Anti-social behaviour, regular disturbances to neighbours or just being a nuisance and inconsiderate to his neighbours.(Unreasonably and deliberately causing annoyance to his neighbours) When complaints are reported to a Landlord who takes no action is not a good landlord,
5. A good landlord will take action to evict a bad tenant, A bad landlord will ignore the plight of neighbours as his only concern is his rental income.
5.A bad tenant will not go easy and ignore any eviction notices and court orders and stay until well after Bailiffs have been booked. Bad tenants lie to courts, make many other excuses, Upon receiving a Notice for eviction they start to destroy property, fabricate problems such as mould etc, a good tenant never needs to be evicted in the first place,
5. Landlords love good responsible long term staying tenants.It is usually good tenants who leave a property themselves as their circumstances change.

I only ever had to evict one anti-social tenants who was not only very abusive, inconsiderate, accrued rent arrears of several months, hostile and dominating other tenants in an HMO, Other tenants were terrified of him. I used Section 8 which was challenged by him so it delayed his eviction, I lost £4500 in total and it took almost 6 months. If I had used Section 21, he would have gone in 3 to 4 months and curbed my losses.

End of the day no matter what, a bad tenants does get evicted eventually adding to homelessness, whether using Section 21 or not.

No landlord will evict any tenants using any sections available, because all he needs is regular rent and looking after the property which is his investment for retirement

When I was in business as opposed to owning my own business I always followed a philosophy of "ask the next question" until you got to a simple answer, usually a yes or no.
Ask the next question and you get -
Homelessness is caused by not enough homes to go round. Nothing else!
The inference is at the moment that private landlords as a collective are sitting on swathes of empty properties for a bit of a giggle. No fault evictions because we feel like it, random in their nature. Decent people just told to leave at a moments notice on the whim of a lazy multimillionaire landlords.
We all somehow acquired our properties free of charge many years ago, and of course with that comes zero running expenses for this elite cabal that we are members of.
Damn I'd want to get rid of us as well, we sound horrible.
These people that run charities and the politicians aren't stupid they know that the root cause is lack of homes, but their positions are dependant on public opinion, but ours aren't. So they kick the can down the road, blame someone else and move on.
The problem now is the end of the road is actually in site. The only question left to answer is who will be left holding the can when we get there?
The only positive I can offer is it won't be us, because we won't be there.

According to the ONS, net migration meant the population of the U.K. grew by 1.2 million people in just two years (2022, 2023).

Yet Starmer and his sidekick, Rayner, deny that net migration is the cause of the housing crisis.

It’s the ONLY cause.