Security of tenure in the PRS is not a cause of increasing homelessness

This tells us what we already knew, but good to hear it confirmed by academics (and the media do so love to quote academics). Having said that, since this puts landlords' decisions in a broadly favourable light, i.e. they use section 21 invariably for valid reasons, you can be sure the Guardian, Independent and BBC won't be rushing out to highlight this report's findings any time soon.

A very interesting report to stuff up the noses of the anti-landlord brigade.

However, I think they have placed too much emphasis on the falling level of Local Housing Allowance. This is a much more significant cause IMHO (page 39);

"wider policy changes are having a disproportionately negative effect on the lower end of the market in some parts of the country"

Section 24 (tenant tax), dumbing down of section 21 ('No fault' evictions), deposit protection, scrapping 10% wear and tear allowance, LHA direct payment to tenant, etc etc have also come into effect in the last decade.

It is no longer worth landlords taking on the extra risk of tenants at the lower end of the market who, inevitably, suffer the consequences first and hardest.

To call Section 21 proceedings as "no-fault evictions" is to use an emotive expression - prone to political mis-use. It implies an innocent tenant, which, as the above report demonstrates, is not always the case.
I'm trying to think of a more accurate wording. Perhaps "no-blame eviction" is less emotive? Or perhaps "an accelerated eviction" reflects more accurately why landlords choose Section 21 notices.

Reply to the comment left by John Frith at 21/11/2018 - 12:30"No Fault Specified" "No Reason Given"
Is this going to back-fire on Tenants? IF Sec.21 is abolished (apart from more LLs exiting the sector) then Landlords will be back to using Sec.8. So if a Tenant is evicted, under Sec.8, for rent arrears and goes to his LA for rehousing. Are the LAs going to turn them away as non-payment of rent is deemed to be the Tenant deliberately making themselves homeless?

The RLA cherry picked what it wanted to from what it paid for. The MMU paper is much more nuanced than this. But I'm afraid that with just 16 in-depth interviews and a response rate of 2% (1,405 from 70,000) self selecting nothing can be deduced from their survey.
The discussion is interesting, though, and their stress on the London-centric bias in policy is welcome.

Send the report to Shelter.....

As for the report from the academics, I welcome it ( although no disrespect to them, a 6th form could have given the answer to why Homelessness is rising )
On John and Grommits' point, I object to the term No-Fault evictions and I don't think its helpful for landlord / organisations to repeat the negative connotation phrase 'no fault' labelled by certain Tenant groups. Anyone with a brain knows its business suicide to go through the time and expense of Sec 21 to evict a tenant who's paying rent and looking after the property, as that's the Raison D'Etre of renting. I believe tenant groups fully understand this but publicly and 'politically' use the phrase to achieve their means.
Are the govt going to take any notice ? - not a blind bit, because THEY know the truth as well. Its all about govt. saving money by reducing funding.
If the government wanted to find out the reasons behind Sec 21, as indeed the report recommends, all they'd have to do is amend the Form 6A , 'asking' for a ground, ALTHOUGH, with the 2 months Notice having been given, it would NOT require proof for Possession to succeed. ( and if a ground wasn't stated for whatever reason, it would NOT prevent a Possession order. )