Please Note: This Article is 7 years old. This increases the likelihood that some or all of it's content is now outdated.

The All Party Parliamentary Group for the Private Rented Sector has launched a short inquiry into Sarah Teather MP’s Bill to tackle the problem of retaliatory eviction rules in private rented housing.

Retaliatory evictions are commonly understood to have taken place where a tenant asked their landlord to carry out repairs to their properties and the landlord responds by serving notice on them to leave the home. Tenants and landlord organisations dispute the extent to which such evictions take place.

Sarah Teather MP’s Tenancies (Reform) Bill seeks to protect tenants against such evictions and to amend the law on notices seeking possession relating to assured short hold tenancies.

The Group has launched its inquiry to understand the impact that the legislation would have on the sector, the extent of the problem it seeks to address and what, if any, changes could be made to improve it.

- Advertisement -

All interested organisations are invited to submit evidence and a report will be produced with recommendations being made to Ministers before the Committee Stage of the Bill.

As well as written submissions, members will take oral evidence from experts on the 27 th October and 3rd November.

Announcing the inquiry, the Group’s Chairman, Oliver Colvile, Member of Parliament for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport said:

“The issue of evictions in rented homes is incredibly emotive and needs to be treated sensitively.

“Tenants rightly deserve protections from rogue landlords whilst landlords also need protections to be able to swiftly remove tenants who breach the terms of their contracts.

“With landlord and tenant groups in disagreement over the need for this Bill the Group will seek to reach a consensus on the best way forward that is fair to all sides.”

Those with an interest in these subjects are invited to provide written submissions of no more than 1,000 words with a one page executive summary to Ed Jacobs on .


The secretariat to the APPG for the Private Rented Sector is provided by the Residential Landlords Association.

All-Party Parliamentary Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. They are not official committees of either the House of Lords or Commons.

The APPG is chaired by Oliver Colvile MP (Conservative, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport). Vice-chairs are Karen Buck MP (Labour, Westminster North) and David Ward MP (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East)

The terms of reference for the inquiry will be:

What constitutes a retaliatory eviction?
How extensive is the problem of retaliatory evictions?
Is there is already sufficient protection for tenants from existing legislation?
Is this Bill needed?
What impact would it have on tenants, landlords and lenders’ readiness to lend landlords the finance needed for new homes to rent?
Could the Bill be improved, and if so, how?

Details of the Bill can be found at

The Group will be holding two oral evidence sessions:

Monday 27th October, 5pm – House of Commons Committee Room 7

Witnesses will be:

Jason Freeman – Director of Consumer Law at the Competition and Markets Authority.
David Cox – Managing Director of the Association of Residential Letting Agents.
Paul Shamplina – Founder of Landlord Action

Monday 3rd November, 5pm – House of Commons Committee Room 17

Witnesses will be:

Sarah Teather MP
John Gallagher – Principle Solicitor at Shelter
Dave Princep – Residential Landlords Association

Please Note: This Article is 7 years old. This increases the likelihood that some or all of it's content is now outdated.


  1. I have visited the link to look at the bill, but the text has not been published yet.

    It is thus very difficult to provide informed comment to the All Party Group not knowing what the bill actually contains!

  2. No doubt there has been the occasional \”retaliatory eviction\” – but two points:
    1) How many? Does Sarah Teather have any data?
    2) Is the data one-sided (i.e. only from tenants)
    Surely most landlords will make repairs -as they would have to do them eventually?
    So my presumption is that, an eviction after a repair request is more than likely to be after an accumulation of reasons – for which there was a tipping point.
    How would several factors be captured?

    In short, there may well be a case for resisting eviction based on one repair request (perhaps more) – BUT
    whatever additional protections given to tenants, priority must be given to removing the technicalities over s.21 notices – specifically around the wording and dating of these notices. (I\’ve seen some astonishing verbal contortions supposedly to get around s.21 dating ambiguities that make the eviction date more obscure.)
    While a minimum notice period is reasonable, it is wholely ridiculous that a s.21 notice cannot specifiy other later dates or use plain English.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here