With the abolition of Section 21 “no-fault” eviction notices on 1 May 2026, tenants gained protection from one form of arbitrary eviction: landlords can no longer issue a notice to quit without specific grounds. But economic eviction persists – that is, the ability of landlords to push tenants out with a hefty rent hike.
Housing campaigners warn that this will be the new Section 21: rent hikes issued in revenge for tenant complaints, to increase their income whether the tenant decides to stay or not, or to clear the property to convert into something more lucrative. In fact, rent hikes can achieve tenant clearance with less effort than the modified Ground 6 possession claim needed for redevelopment, which has a high evidence burden (requiring things like architects’ plans, schedule of works, quotations). A rent hike, even when challenged under the measures in the Renters’ Rights Act, can be justified with little more than a screenshot of Rightmove.
Economic eviction after Section 21
Economic eviction is already a visible threat on the 182-household St James estate in Bermondsey. Their corporate landlord, BMR, took over the previously below-market-rent estate in November 2025. Less than six months later – in a pre-Renters Rights Act (RRA) rush – fifty households were issued with Section 21s, thirty of which are working their way through backlogged courts.
Separate but concurrently, many households from the rest of the estate were issued Section 13 rent hikes – again, pre-RRA but with market comparison principles that have survived reform. St James tenants now face rises of several hundreds of pounds per month – costs they can’t afford. Local councillor Andy Bates says the landlord is converting many of the newly vacant houses into lucrative Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), some of which appear to be let as temporary accommodation.
For the Government’s part, Housing Secretary Angela Rayner has said that rent controls are not forthcoming as RRA changes are ‘already having a significant impact on the market’. Similarly, while a Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report in July recognised that ‘retaliatory rent increases could act as a form of economic eviction’, the authors were also ‘not currently convinced’ that rent stabilisation is justified. The question is: how is the Government going to collect the relevant evidence? The system is not built to track economic evictions.
The limits of rent tribunal data
Previously, under the Assured Shorthold Tenancy regime, arbitrary evictions – for revenge, raising rent, clearing tenants or property conversion – were typically done through Section 21s. There was no Section 21 registration, but trends could be partially tracked by proxy. Ministry of Justice landlord possessions data would reveal “accelerated” Section 21 possession claims (for tenants who overstayed their notice) giving a concrete number to track every quarter. Even these imperfect figures had the power to generate headlines and shape discussion.
Section 21s also appeared in statutory homelessness statistics with their own column: “Threatened with homelessness due to service of valid section 21 notice”. Again, it didn’t capture all tenants forced out by Section 21s, but it offered another spotlight on landlord eviction practices and their homelessness-producing consequences. The changes introduced by the RRA have compromised this evidence without offering an alternative; economic eviction will not have that same quarterly focus. Weak though the previous tracking system was, the data terrain now seems even sparser.
First-tier Tribunal rulings will go some way to showing the extent and scale of rent hikes. Tribunals allow tenants to challenge rent increases (now for a £47 fee). Rulings are published online and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has stated its intention to use them to monitor whether RRA reforms are contributing to ‘fairer outcomes for renters’. Yet this evidence base presents serious limitations for economic evictions.
First, tribunal outcomes only capture cases submitted and judged. Plenty of rent hikes will just force a tenant out quietly without challenge. Rulings also don’t track any subsequent tenant displacement due to unaffordability. In the St James estate, five rulings have so far been published; two were agreed at the maximum rent requested by the landlord and the five households have seen monthly rent rises of between 9% and 43%. Will these tenants be de facto evicted through unaffordability? How will the Government ever know?
Second, tribunals require tenant initiation, but a lack of confidence in the system will prevent many from bothering. The latest English Housing Survey found that 94% of private renters who made a complaint to their landlord or letting agent and found the response unsatisfactory did not then escalate it to an external arbiter. While this data is not about rent tribunal engagement – referring to things like Environmental Health – the reasons are relevant: 35% of renters said they didn’t think anything would be done and 31% said it was too much hassle or too time-consuming. The 22-page First-Tier Tribunal form (the MR1) prompts for detailed text and photographic evidence related to property dimensions, amenities, conditions and market comparisons. Many renters will find it more than just a hassle: St James resident and campaigner Sophie said in a recent podcast we did together that ‘it [the form] literally has tripped up some of our non-fluent English-speaking neighbours’.
Third, tribunal processes pose exposure risks. If tenants wish to make an undue hardship claim in relation to their rent dispute, they must provide evidence. Such information – like benefits status, savings, age, a physical disability or mental health issue – can be publicly commented on in the ruling. Each highly personal detail is associated with the tenant’s name and address. Another disincentive to apply. Another cohort of squeezed tenants not visible in government trackers.
Separately, the annual English Housing Survey asks respondents their reason for leaving a previous tenancy: in 2024-5, a landlord-imposed rent increase was given as the reason for leaving in just 3% of cases. But the EHS is less frequent than quarterly statutory reporting, relies on small sampling, and comes with many of the participation barriers outlined above.
If we don’t track economic eviction, we won’t see it
So, under the new RRA there’s no adequate proxy to track rent stress and economic eviction. The latitude this information gap gifts to landlords will likely hit long-established tenant communities the hardest – communities like St James, where tenants have lived for decades, renting on lower-than-market rent rates.
Statutory data collection around economic evictions won’t help St James residents today – they need funds to fight their evictions through the legal system. But, in the absence of rent controls, tracking economic eviction impacts is desperately needed. The St James experience is only visible through a hard-fought grassroots campaign – a government that chooses to look away will not see the next one.
Jessica Field is a housing writer and author of Eviction: A Social History of Rent (Verso, 2025) – out now in paperback. St James tenants are fighting displacement and calling on their previous landlord, Notting Hill Genesis, to rehouse evicted tenants. You can donate to their fight here.
Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)