I was pleased to speak to Joe Wright at The Telegraph this week about an issue I have been raising for more many years, but one that still is not getting the attention it deserves.

There is no question that we are in the middle of a genuine housing crisis. Councils up and down the country are struggling to find homes for tenants who have nowhere to go. Social housing supply is nowhere near where it needs to be, and reliance on temporary accommodation continues to rise. However, that reality cannot mean that landlords become the default solution.

For decades, councils have said they will work with tenants to prevent eviction. Yet in practice, many (not all) continue to advise tenants to remain in properties until bailiffs arrive. That approach may help local authorities manage their homelessness figures in the short term, but it comes at a significant cost, and that cost is being pushed directly onto landlords.

In effect, landlords are being forced to pursue eviction through the courts, often over many months, simply so tenants can qualify for rehousing support. It creates unnecessary conflict, delays, and financial pressure, and as the NRLA rightly said, ultimately stokes animosity between landlords and tenants, something that benefits no one.

This is not a new problem. I raised it directly with Brandon Lewis when he was Housing Minister back in 2016, and it was recognised even then, but instead of improving, the situation has clearly worsened in recent years.

When I speak to landlords across the country, there is a common theme. Many have felt compelled to use Section 21 notices, not as a first resort, but as a practical mechanism to help tenants access housing support. That in itself tells you something is fundamentally broken in the system.

Now, with the abolition of Section 21, there is a real risk that things will get worse.

Tenants in arrears served with a Section 8 notice may find it even harder to be rehoused. At the same time, landlords will be left navigating a more complex and drawn-out legal process, often with no rent coming in and no clear end in sight. The pressure on both sides will only increase, and we are already seeing the human cost of this.

We are currently dealing with a case that perfectly illustrates the impact. A landlord in his 90s, who relied on his rental property as part of his pension, has been forced back into work after his local authority repeatedly advised the tenant to remain in the property while delaying rehousing.

Despite serving a valid notice, missed deadlines have meant restarting the process. The result? Mounting mortgage costs, over £30,000 in debt, and the very real risk of repossession.

Sadly, this is not an isolated case. It is happening across the country and it is pushing ordinary landlords into financial hardship.

At the same time, landlords are continuing to leave the sector in significant numbers. Increased regulation, rising costs, and a growing sense that the system is stacked against them are all contributing to that exodus.

If landlords are expected to play any kind of role in supporting the wider housing system, and in reality, they already do, then the current approach makes no sense.

You cannot squeeze landlords out of the market on one hand, while relying on them as a safety net on the other.

If anything, the opposite should be happening. If the private rented sector is going to shoulder more responsibility, then there needs to be more incentives, not fewer, to keep landlords in the market.

We all know that as supply shrinks, the situation for tenants will deteriorate further. Rents will rise, choice will diminish, and those most in need will find it even harder to secure a home.

Ultimately, both tenants and landlords are being let down by a system under immense strain.

Until we address the root cause, which is the chronic shortage of housing, and ensure that responsibility is shared more fairly, this cycle will continue.

‍