The government has rejected a landlord petition calling for revised eviction grounds and more help to weed out problem tenants.

The petition – set up by landlord Craig Littlejohn at the end of January – has already gained 15,176 signatures and hoped to push the government to bring in a six-week expedited court process for Mandatory Grounds s8/7A (for arrears and anti-social behaviour), as well as create a registered-landlord database of court-evicted tenants, and to raise the deposit cap to adequately cover severe damage.

However, in its response, the government insists the Renters’ Rights Act will ensure landlords can continue to gain possession when necessary, while offering more security to tenants. It has no plans to introduce an expedited court possession process for mandatory possession grounds, a tenant vetting database, or to raise the cap on tenancy deposits.

Value

It adds: “We value the contribution made by responsible landlords, who provide quality homes to their tenants and understand that landlords must have robust possession grounds where there is a good reason to take their property back. While we recommend landlords and tenants work together to address issues, these possession grounds are sufficient to take action when this is not possible.”

It adds that a shorter expedited process would not allow sufficient time for tenant protections if they wanted to challenge an eviction.

Need

It dismisses the need for a database of tenants who have previously been evicted by a bailiff following a court possession order. “Private landlords and letting agents already have a range of tools available to them to obtain references from their tenants, and may consider various factors when deciding to let to a tenant, including previous or outstanding rent arrears and credit checks.”

Current rules around tenancy deposits strike the right balance between providing security for landlords and maintaining affordability for tenants, it adds.

The petition runs until 26th July but would need 100,000 signatures before it is considered for debate in Parliament.

‍