Authored By: Ayushi Surti
LLB Graduate from Coventry University
Introduction
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 affects about 4.7 million households and 2.3 million landlords in the private rented sector in England. Coming into force on 1 May 2026, the legislation repeals Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and abolishes section 21 notices, removing landlords’ ability to recover possession without fault.
Section 21 allowed landlords to regain possession of their property after a fixed-term lease ended by serving a minimum of two months’ notice, without establishing any breach by the tenant. This was introduced to increase landlords’ confidence and stimulate growth in a private rented sector that had experienced long-term decline. However, the structure of the sector has changed significantly since 1988, with ‘increasing numbers of families and long-term renters relying on private accommodation’, as reflected in government policy discussions. This change has supported calls for reform to improve tenant security.
This article argues that while the abolition of section 21 strengthens tenant security and aligns possession law with contemporary housing needs, it significantly alters landlord possession rights by increasing reliance on contested statutory grounds under section 8, placing greater procedural strain on the possession framework.
It examines the legal framework governing possession, analyses relevant case law and statutory developments, and evaluates the reform from both tenant and landlord perspectives before considering comparative approaches in other jurisdictions.
The Legal Framework
Possession of residential property in England is governed by the Housing Act 1988, as amended by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which came into force on 1 May 2026. Prior to these reforms, the framework operated through a dual system of possession: the “no-fault” route under section 21 and the fault-based route under section 8.
Until its repeal, section 21 allowed landlords to obtain possession of an assured shorthold tenancy without proving any breach by the tenant. Courts generally made a possession order where statutory and procedural requirements were satisfied. This made section 21 the most commonly used route to possession due to its relative speed and limited evidential burden.
By contrast, section 8 permits landlords to seek possession only where one or more statutory grounds in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 are established. These grounds include rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, and breach of tenancy obligations. Unlike section 21, section 8 requires landlords to prove the existence of a legal ground before the court for possession.
Following the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, section 21 has been abolished for new possession claims. The system now operates exclusively through section 8, although the Act expands certain mandatory grounds, including landlord occupation and sale of the property, to preserve practical routes to possession.
The legal framework therefore represents a shift to a single grounds-based system in which all possession claims require statutory justification and judicial determination.
Case Law Analysis
The case law on Section 21 demonstrates that although it was often described as a “no-fault” route to possession, its operation was heavily dependent on strict statutory compliance rather than automatic entitlement.
In Spencer v Taylor, the Court of Appeal confirmed that section 21 notices should be interpreted objectively, and that minor defects will not automatically invalidate a notice where a reasonable recipient could still understand its effect. This reflects a judicial approach that prioritises preserving the effectiveness of section 21 where possible, supporting its role as a relatively streamlined possession route. The decision shows that the courts were prepared to adopt a pragmatic approach to compliance, prioritising substance over form where possible. Overall, the case illustrates that Section 21 was not automatic in practice but depended on judicial assessment of whether statutory requirements had been sufficiently met.
Similarly, in Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield, the Court of Appeal held that failure to provide a gas safety certificate at the outset of a tenancy could, in some circumstances, be remedied before service of a Section 21 notice. This illustrates that compliance requirements under Section 21 were both strict and, in limited cases, capable of being cured. The decision highlights that Section 21 operated within a structured regulatory framework rather than as an unfettered landlord right. This indicates that the courts allowed limited opportunities to rectify procedural defects, reflecting an attempt to balance regulatory compliance with practical enforcement of possession rights.
Further uncertainty is illustrated by Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues, where a strict approach was adopted to deposit protection requirements, holding that failure to comply with statutory obligations could invalidate a Section 21 notice. This case demonstrates the vulnerability of Section 21 to procedural error and the importance of ongoing compliance with statutory protections. The judgment demonstrates that Section 21 was highly sensitive to technical compliance, meaning even procedural oversights could defeat possession claims entirely.
Taken together, these authorities demonstrate that Section 21 was not a purely automatic “no-fault” mechanism but a conditional statutory remedy dependent on precise procedural compliance. This suggests that abolition does not remove an unfettered right but instead replaces a procedurally structured route with a system requiring substantiation of grounds for possession.
The controversy and reasoning
The abolition of Section 21 under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has generated significant debate concerning the balance between tenant security and landlord possession rights. While framed as a reform to improve housing stability, its impact on the structure of the private rented sector (PRS) remains contested.
A key justification for reform is the changing nature of the PRS. Kemp argues that the sector has shifted away from short-term occupation, towards longer-term housing, with families and vulnerable tenants increasingly relying on private renting as a primary residence. This challenges the original policy rationale behind Section 21, which was designed to encourage investment by providing landlords with a predictable and low-friction route to possession under the Housing Act 1988. House of Commons Library, ‘The end of “no fault”
This development is reflected in House of Commons Library analysis, which confirms that assured shorthold tenancies became dominant due to the ease of possession under Section 21, supporting landlord confidence in the sector and encouraging supply. However, subsequent reforms, particularly under the Deregulation Act 2015, introduced procedural constraints such as deposit protection and prescribed documentation requirements, indicating that Section 21 had already become increasingly regulated prior to abolition.
Despite this regulatory evolution, criticism remains focused on the practical importance of Section 21 for landlords. Goldstein argues that it provided a faster and less adversarial route to possession than Section 8, which requires proof of statutory grounds and is more exposed to evidential disputes and delay. From this perspective, Section 21 functioned as a key risk-management tool within the PRS.
Concerns regarding behavioural effects are also evident in academic literature. Milcheva notes that stronger tenant protections may influence landlord behaviour, including tenant selection and investment decisions, particularly where enforcement becomes more complex. This raises concerns about potential indirect effects on rental supply and accessibility.
However, these concerns must be balanced against arguments that enhanced security produces systemic benefits. Kemp suggests that longer-term tenancies reduce turnover and void periods, potentially improving efficiency in the rental market. Parliamentary materials similarly highlight that increasing numbers of households now rely on long-term private renting, strengthening the case for reform.
Overall, the abolition of Section 21 reflects a policy decision to prioritise security of occupation over ease of repossession, though its long-term impact on supply and litigation behaviour remains uncertain.
Does abolition improve tenant security?
A key justification for abolishing Section 21 is improved tenant security, particularly through greater stability of occupation and protection against eviction without fault. Under the previous regime, assured shorthold tenants could be required to leave at the end of a tenancy term without any requirement for wrongdoing, subject only to statutory notice compliance under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. This created a system in which continued occupation was largely dependent on landlord choice rather than substantive justification.
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 replaces this framework by removing Section 21 entirely and requiring landlords to rely on statutory grounds under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. In principle, this strengthens tenant security by ensuring possession must be justified by recognised legal grounds such as rent arrears or breach of tenancy obligations. However, the extent of this improvement is qualified: security now depends on how effectively Section 8 grounds operate in practice, particularly given concerns about court capacity and procedural delay.
From a policy perspective, Kemp argues that the private rented sector has evolved into a long-term housing solution for many households, particularly families and older tenants. This supports stronger security of tenure. However, this argument assumes that legal form should simply reflect social practice; it does not address whether restricting landlord exit rights may reduce flexibility in a sector that still relies heavily on private investment.
The House of Commons Library similarly identifies Section 21 as a key contributor to perceived insecurity and housing instability, including cases where tenants in compliance were still evicted. However, this critique is partly limited: it treats all no-fault evictions as arbitrary, despite the fact that Section 21 also functioned as a predictable contractual exit mechanism at the end of tenancies.
Milcheva notes that Section 21 generated insecurity concerns and influenced perceptions of housing instability, but her analysis also suggests these effects are behavioural and indirect rather than solely legal. This weakens the argument that abolition alone resolves insecurity, as perception-based concerns may persist even under a stricter regime if enforcement delays increase.
Overall, abolition does improve formal legal security by requiring justification for possession, but its practical impact depends on the effectiveness of Section 8 enforcement and court capacity. Accordingly, the reform enhances legal protection but does not necessarily guarantee improved lived security.
At the expense of landlord rights?
While abolition strengthens tenant security, it reduces landlord flexibility by removing a relatively predictable possession route under Section 21. Under the previous regime, landlords could obtain possession at the end of a fixed term without proving fault, provided procedural requirements were met. Although often described as automatic, case law demonstrates that this mechanism was highly technical and vulnerable to invalidation where compliance requirements were not satisfied.
Goldstein argues that Section 21 provided a faster and less adversarial possession route than Section 8, which requires proof of statutory grounds and is more susceptible to evidential dispute. However, this efficiency argument is overstated if viewed in isolation: it assumes that speed is the primary objective of possession law, rather than balancing efficiency with fairness and security. In practice, Section 21’s procedural rigidity meant that it was not always reliable, particularly following reforms under the Deregulation Act 2015.
The House of Commons Library identifies Section 21 as central to landlord confidence and investment stability in the private rented sector. While this is persuasive at a structural level, it does not necessarily follow that removing Section 21 will reduce supply; empirical evidence on post-reform investment behaviour remains uncertain and context dependent.
Milcheva suggests that stronger tenant protections may influence landlord behaviour, including more selective letting or reduced participation in certain market segments. However, these effects are presented as risks rather than established outcomes, meaning their predictive weight should not be overstated.
Accordingly, the abolition of Section 21 does not remove landlord rights but reconfigures them within a more regulated statutory framework requiring justification for possession. The key issue is therefore not the existence of landlord rights, but the increased procedural burden in exercising them. Whether this represents a disproportionate restriction depends on how one values housing security relative to investment flexibility.
Comparation
Scotland
Scotland reformed its private rented sector through the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, which came into force on 1 December 2017, abolishing no-fault evictions within its jurisdiction. The reforms replaced fixed-term assured tenancy structures with open-ended Private Residential Tenancies and removed the previous equivalent of “no-fault” termination, requiring landlords instead to rely on statutory grounds for recovery of possession. Certain grounds permit possession on relatively short notice, demonstrating that enhanced tenant security can coexist with structured landlord exit mechanisms.
Shelter Scotland reports that many tenants experienced improved housing stability and reduced anxiety following these reforms, suggesting a tangible improvement in perceived security of tenure. This indicates that restricting no-fault possession may strengthen perceived and practical security of tenure. However, differences in enforcement structure and market composition mean the English reforms may not produce identical outcomes.
Farnood and Jones argue that Scotland’s reforms have contributed to a more regulated and institutionally mature rental market, but also reduced flexibility for some landlords, with evidence of portfolio shifts towards short-term letting. This suggests that stronger tenant protection may alter investment behaviour and rental supply dynamics. This suggests that while tenant security may be enhanced, regulatory tightening can generate behavioural adaptations within the rental sector that affect supply dynamics.
Overall, Scotland indicates that abolishing no-fault-style possession mechanisms can improve tenant security, but may also reshape landlord incentives in ways that affect supply.
Germany
Germany provides a useful comparative model under the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), where residential tenancies are generally open-ended and landlords may only terminate where they can demonstrate a “legitimate interest” (berechtigtes Interesse) under §573(1) BGB. Recognised grounds include landlord occupation and serious breach by the tenant, with termination further constrained by statutory notice periods under §573c(1) BGB, which increase with tenancy duration.
This framework demonstrates that strong tenant security does not depend on a no-fault eviction mechanism, as landlord possession rights remain available but are conditional upon statutory justification rather than procedural entitlement. However, it also results in greater judicial scrutiny and a more restricted ability for landlords to recover possession compared to the former Section 21 regime in England.
Reform
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 introduces a fundamental restructuring of possession law in England by abolishing Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and shifting possession claims primarily to Section 8 of the same Act. This replaces the previous dual system with a single grounds-based framework, requiring landlords to demonstrate statutory grounds for all possession actions under Schedule 2. In principle, this strengthens tenant security by removing the possibility of eviction without fault.
However, the reform also increases reliance on judicial determination, raising concerns regarding court capacity, evidential burden, and potential delays in resolving possession claims. Although additional mandatory grounds, including landlord occupation and sale, preserve some flexibility, landlords now face greater procedural requirements when seeking possession.
Accordingly, the effectiveness of the reform will depend on how efficiently Section 8 operates in practice. Its long-term impact remains uncertain, particularly in relation to court workload and landlord participation in the private rented sector.
Conclusion
The abolition of Section 21 under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 marks a clear structural change in English housing law, replacing a dual possession system with a framework that relies primarily on statutory grounds under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. This shift enhances tenant security by removing the ability to regain possession without establishing fault, directly responding to concerns about instability and perceived unfairness in the previous regime.
That said, the extent of this improvement is limited in practice. Although the legal position now offers stronger protection in principle, its effectiveness will depend on how well Section 8 functions in reality, particularly in terms of court capacity, evidential demands, and the speed of proceedings. Any delays or procedural inefficiencies may weaken the actual security tenants experience.
Landlord rights have not been removed but rebalanced within a more structured system. Requiring reliance on statutory grounds increases procedural complexity and reduces flexibility compared to Section 21. Comparative insights from Scotland and Germany show that while stronger tenant protection is achievable alongside landlord rights, it can also reshape market behaviour and investment patterns.
Overall, the reform improves legal security for tenants, but its practical consequences remain uncertain and are likely to involve a recalibration of, rather than a complete reduction in, landlord rights.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Statute
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB)
Deregulation Act 2015
Housing Act 1988
Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016
Renters’ Rights Act 2025
Cases
Spencer v Taylor [2013] EWCA Civ 1600
Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669
Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield [2020] EWCA Civ 760
Secondary Sources
Journal Article
Farnood F and Jones C, ‘Understanding the market maturity of the private rented sector’ (2020) 35(6) Housing Studies 970
Goldstein S, ‘An end to Section 21 notices?’ (2019) Property Journal
Kemp P, ‘Rental reform: recalibrating the landlord-tenant relationship in England’ (2026) 75–82
Milcheva S, The Case of Section 21 (UCL Bartlett 2019)
Government Papers
Cromarty H, ‘Renters’ reform in England: What’s happening and when?’ (House of Commons Library Briefing Paper 2026)
House of Commons Library, ‘The end of “no fault” Section 21 evictions’ (CBP-8658, 2023)
Websites
Shelter Scotland, The New Private Rental Tenancies: Evaluating changes to rental agreements in Scotland (2023) < https://assets.ctfassets.net/6sxvmndnpn0s/7yB0OuJ0v2YMHdqfGLuZf9/d15acc7604c58989d5ae0fc5b9864171/Scotland_Exec_Summary_Final_1.pdf > accessed 29 May 2026
