The RLA has written to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation following the publication of a ‘misleading and distorted’ report into evictions in the PRS.
In the letter RLA chairman Alan Ward asked new chief executive Campbell Robb, to explain how the foundation came to the conclusion that the number of evictions was greater in the PRS than the social sector, when official figures from the Ministry of Justice show the opposite to be true.
The full text is below. The RLA will update members with any response.
I hope you are enjoying your new role at JRF and I’m sorry to have to raise the points contained below.
I was interested to read the JRF’s recent research on evictions in the private rented sector.
Whilst the RLA is well aware of the impact of recent welfare reforms, we are seriously concerned about the potentially misleading and distorted presentation of official statistics on repossessions.
I should therefore welcome an early response to a number of questions.
The report notes that “the number of tenants evicted by private landlords exceeded the number evicted by social landlords for the first time in 2014.”
As you know, the Ministry of Justice’s Mortgage and Landlord Possession Statistics break landlord possessions into three groups:
- Social landlord repossessions;
- Private landlord repossessions; and
- Possessions using the accelerated procedure which can be used by both private and social sector landlords. The Ministry of Justice data does not distinguish between which types of landlord use the accelerated procedure.
Table 7 of the Ministry of Justice’s January-March 2017 mortgage and landlord possession statistics show the number of landlord possession claims in the county courts of England and Wales by type of procedure and landlord. Since 2014, the results have been as follows.
|Accelerated||Private||Social||Total Claims Issued|
|Q1 2017 (p)||7,716||5,460||22,012||35,188|
These results clearly show that in every year since 2014 social sector landlords have made more claims to repossess a property than private sector landlords.
This would be the case even if every claim using the accelerated procedure was undertaken by private sector landlords. I would therefore be grateful if you could provide an explanation as to how JRF has arrived at the conclusion that “the number of tenants evicted by private landlords exceeded the number evicted by social landlords for the first time in 2014”.
The press release to accompany the JRF’s report noted too that “Over 40,000 tenants were evicted from their homes by landlords in 2015.” It later goes on to say that: “Of the 40,000 evictions, there were 19,019 repossessions in the social housing sector, and 22,150 in the private rented sector.”
Such a statement cannot however be made based on the figures in the MoJ’s statistics tables accompanying the January-March 2017 mortgage and landlord possession statistics.
Table 8 provides the mortgage and landlord possession workload in the county courts of England between1999 – 2017. For those repossessions that led to the courts sending bailiffs in, the figures are as follows.
|Repossessions by County Court Bailiffs|
|Accelerated||Private||Social||All repossessions by county court bailiffs|
This data very clearly shows that since 2014, more bailiffs have been sent to repossess properties in the social rented sector than in the private rented sector.
The only way that it could be shown that there were more bailiffs involved in repossession cases in the private rented sector would be to assume that every accelerated procedure was for the private rented sector which as well as being undocumented is unlikely given the documented balance between private and social landlord evictions. I would be grateful therefore if the JRF could make clear where its figures have come from
English Housing Survey and the NAO
I should finally be grateful for an explanation as to why, in a report on security of tenure, the JRF has failed to note that, accordingly to the English Housing Survey for 2015/16, the average length of time a tenant has been in their current private rented property is now 4.3 years.
Likewise, the survey showed that 73% of private sector tenants had moved from their previous property because they chose to, 11% said that their landlord or agent ended the tenancy and just 2% said it was because of a rent increase by their landlord.
Likewise, the JRF report failed to report that the National Audit Office has noted that “since 2006, the cost of private rented accommodation has broadly followed changes in earnings across England”, whilst social rents have “increased faster than earnings since 2001-02.”
Given the clear public interest in this issue, I am publishing this letter on the RLA website, and copying in Sir Andrew Dilnot as Chair of the UK Statistics Authority.
I look forward to receiving a swift response.
 Office for National Statistics, Housing summary measures analysis: 2015, 7th October 2016, available at:
 Ministry of Justice, Mortgage and landlord possession statistical tables: January to March 2017, 11th May 2017, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mortgage-and-landlord-possession-statistics-january-to-march-2017.
 National Audit Office, Housing in England: overview, 19th January 2017, page 7, available at https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Housing-in-England-overview.pdf.