‘It is one thing for a council to face arrears but another for a small landlord with a mortgage’

• ROBERT Taylor of the Camden Federation of Private Tenants is correct in stating that a key difference between social and private rental sector (PRS) tenants is security of tenure and in that respect social tenants do enjoy more power, (Private renters are afforded precious little protection, February 10).

I apologise for the claim I made as in that respect; it was untrue. Of course, in making necessary repairs, security of tenure doesn’t help if there is a monopoly supplier.

But Mr Taylor is right to address the point about tenure. Social tenants can be evicted on “grounds” which include rent arrears and anti-social behaviour; but it is hard to do this and in practice that is why most PRS tenants are evicted.

The evictions are generally section 21, no-fault, evictions so at face value rent arrears and anti-social behaviour are not factors.

But research, supported by logic, indicates that the main underlying reasons for eviction are exactly the same as in social housing “grounds”.

Section 8 evictions (essentially rent arrears and anti-social behaviour for the PRS) are in their current form inadequate.

If they worked as they should section 21 could go. The PRS’s main concern about the removal of section 21 is the inadequacy of section 8.

It is one thing for a council to face arrears but another for a small landlord with a mortgage; and most landlords let just one property and are small.

There is a normal bell-curve distribution of landlords and tenants with a minority of unscrupulous landlords and for that matter tenants either in serious arrears or behaving anti-socially.

Camden Federation of Private Tenants does great work to help private sector tenants who are unfairly treated in fighting for their cause.

Successive Conservative governments have raised PRS costs; starting with George Osborne removing interest relief, raising Stamp Duty Land tax and raising other costs besides.

This has resulted in the unstoppable removal of old private rental stock from the market, generally being taken over by owner occupiers.

This old stock is to some degree being replaced by large institutional buy-to-let modern housing, but this is expensive and affordable housing is a big cost to these large developers.

The shortage of private rental stock and penal costs to a landlord if a tenant defaults or is anti-social, stops professional landlords supplying just the type of tenant CFPT is trying to protect.

This pushes tenants who cannot let from professional landlords into undocumented and unregulated and effectively unregulatable landlords who will flout the law however tough it gets.

My point was and is that saddling the regulated part of the PRS with additional cost and risk aversion is no good for tenants.

Local authorities recognise the unacceptable costs of affordable housing to developers and are trying to allow developers to build sufficiently densely so that it can be a win-win to the developer and local authority.

The person not in the room when the decision is made is the voter living near to where these monstrous schemes are being hatched.

ALEX SHINDER, NW3