The 2026 London Rent Crisis Map: Which Boroughs Saw the Biggest ‘No-Fault’ Eviction Jumps?

Introduction: London’s Eviction Crisis Hits Record Levels

London’s private rental sector faces an unprecedented crisis. As the Labour government delays implementation of its promised ban on Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions, tenants across the capital face increasingly precarious housing situations. With 4,685 no-fault evictions recorded in London during 2024 alone—the highest figure since 2018—and projections suggesting this could rise to 5,464 by 2026, London boroughs have become battlegrounds in a housing affordability emergency that threatens to displace hundreds of thousands of families.

This data-journalism investigation maps the eviction epidemic across London’s 32 boroughs, revealing which areas have been hit hardest, which landlords are operating in each zone, and what residents need to know to protect their tenancies. The crisis is not evenly distributed: while some outer London boroughs maintain relatively stable eviction rates, inner-city areas and specific East London communities face eviction rates 58% higher than pre-pandemic levels—a staggering increase that demands immediate policy intervention.

Understanding Section 21: The No-Fault Eviction Explained

Before examining the borough-by-borough crisis, it’s crucial to understand what Section 21 evictions are and why they’ve become such a controversial policy tool.

Section 21 is a clause embedded within the Housing Act 1988 that allows private landlords to terminate an assured shorthold tenancy without providing any reason whatsoever. Landlords need only provide two months’ notice to evict a tenant, regardless of their rental payment history, behavior, or personal circumstances. This contrasts sharply with Section 8 evictions, which require landlords to demonstrate a specific breach of tenancy terms—such as rent arrears, property damage, or antisocial behavior.

The government defines Section 21 evictions as “no-fault” because tenants have done nothing wrong to trigger the eviction. A landlord might serve a Section 21 notice to sell the property, move back in, renovate, or simply increase rental income by attracting new tenants at higher market rates. The lack of due process makes Section 21 a distinctly landlord-friendly mechanism that prioritizes property owner flexibility over tenant security.

Since 2021, the Labour Party has campaigned on abolishing Section 21 entirely through its proposed Renters’ Rights Bill. However, as of October 2025, the legislation remains stalled in parliament, with implementation now not expected until early 2026. This delay has created a perverse incentive structure: landlords aware that Section 21 evictions may soon become illegal are accelerating their use of the mechanism while they legally can.

Ministry of Justice data reveals that approximately 30,000 Section 21 notices were issued across England during 2024-2025, with roughly half of those in London. The City generates proportionally more eviction activity than any other region, making London a critical testing ground for rental market instability.

National Context: Why London Matters Most

Understanding London’s eviction crisis requires context about the national situation. Between July 2024 and June 2025, 11,400 households in England were removed from their homes by county court bailiffs following Section 21 notices—an 8% increase on the previous year. Shelter, the homelessness charity, calculated that this translates to approximately 950 households losing their homes every single month due to no-fault evictions.

London accounts for roughly 33% of all English landlord repossession warrants, far exceeding its population share. This concentration reflects multiple factors: London’s high property values incentivize landlords to optimize their portfolios; the capital’s robust Buy-to-Let market attracts professional and semi-professional landlords; and London’s extreme rental affordability crisis means that many properties are owned by investors rather than owner-occupiers.

The Renters Reform Coalition has warned that every month of delay in implementing the Section 21 ban pushes tenants further into precarity. Many landlords are deliberately timing their Section 21 notices to evict tenants before the ban takes effect, creating a “tsunami” of displacement in 2025-2026 before legal reform provides protection.

For London’s 2.2 million private renters—accounting for approximately 30% of all London households—the stakes could not be higher. Young families, lower-income workers, and vulnerable populations bear the brunt of Section 21 evictions because they have fewer resources to fight displacement or secure alternative housing quickly.

The East London Eviction Epicenter: Newham Leads in Crisis

The data reveals a stark geographical pattern: East London boroughs face an eviction crisis of unprecedented proportions.

Newham stands out as the hardest-hit borough. The borough experienced 7.10 evictions per 1,000 households in Q1 2025—a devastating 57.8% increase since the pre-pandemic baseline of 4.50 per 1,000 in 2019. To translate this into human terms: in a typical Newham residential street of 150 households, approximately one household faced eviction proceedings during this quarter alone.

The trend has accelerated dramatically throughout 2025. Monthly data shows Newham’s eviction filings climbing from 165 in January 2025 to 240 by October 2025—a 45% escalation in just nine months. Extrapolating this trajectory forward, Newham could see approximately 3,000 eviction cases filed during 2026 alone, overwhelming the borough’s already stretched housing support services.

Newham’s crisis has multiple root causes. First, the borough contains some of London’s most affordable housing stock, making it attractive to buy-to-let investors seeking rental yield. Second, Newham has experienced rapid gentrification and regeneration around Stratford (following the 2012 Olympics infrastructure development), creating landlord incentives to displace existing tenants and capture higher market rents. Third, Newham’s population is disproportionately composed of younger, lower-income households—precisely the demographic most vulnerable to eviction.

The borough’s temporary accommodation crisis—with 55.35 households per 1,000 living in temporary accommodation (compared to the London average of 19.2)—demonstrates the cascading impact of evictions. Families evicted from permanent housing flow into emergency temporary accommodation, straining council resources and creating instability for children’s education, employment, and health outcomes.

Barking & Dagenham: The Second-Worst Crisis

Immediately adjacent to Newham, Barking & Dagenham faces the second-most severe eviction crisis, with 5.17 repossessions per 1,000 households in Q1 2025—a 24% increase from the pre-pandemic 4.17 per 1,000. Monthly trends show consistent escalation, climbing from 98 eviction filings in January 2025 to 155 by October.

Barking & Dagenham’s eviction pattern mirrors Newham’s socioeconomic drivers. The borough has experienced significant property investment activity, particularly around the Barking Town Centre regeneration scheme. The combination of relatively affordable property prices and strong rental demand creates conditions where landlords view tenant displacement and rent restructuring as profit maximization strategies.

What distinguishes Barking & Dagenham’s crisis is the particular vulnerability of its tenant population. The borough has high concentrations of non-UK born residents, including recent migrants and refugee communities. These populations often face additional barriers to legal representation and housing advocacy, making them less able to resist or challenge unjust evictions.

The North London Surge: Croydon, Enfield, and Waltham Forest

Moving into North and South London, the crisis pattern becomes more complex. While eviction rates remain lower than in East London, the percentage increases since 2019 are substantial and accelerating.

Croydon experienced a 23.7% increase since 2019, climbing to 2.35 per 1,000 households. Enfield saw a 22.5% increase to 2.45 per 1,000. Waltham Forest recorded a 20.5% increase to 2.65 per 1,000. These boroughs share similar characteristics: outer London locations with more affordable housing stock than central London, significant recent population growth, and strong rental markets attracting buy-to-let investment.

Notably, all three boroughs have used arm’s-length companies to issue Section 21 notices—a controversial practice exposed by The Guardian in October 2025. Councils like Enfield and Croydon manage housing through separate corporate entities that can issue no-fault evictions even though councils themselves face restrictions. This workaround effectively circumvents the intended policy goal of limiting local authority involvement in no-fault evictions, creating a parallel eviction pipeline beyond traditional private landlord activity.

Central London’s Hidden Crisis: Hackney, Tower Hamlets, and Southwark

Central London boroughs like Hackney, Tower Hamlets, and Southwark face eviction increases of 20%, despite maintaining lower absolute eviction rates than East London.

Hackney recorded 2.95 per 1,000 households (up 20.4% since 2019), with 62 landlord-initiated evictions in Q1 2025 alone. Tower Hamlets reached 2.88 per 1,000 (up 20%). Southwark climbed to 2.28 per 1,000 (up 20%), while simultaneously facing the second-highest temporary accommodation burden in London after Newham, with 28.05 households per 1,000 in emergency housing.

These boroughs’ crises reflect gentrification pressures. Hackney and Tower Hamlets, traditionally working-class immigrant communities, have experienced decades of gentrification. Long-standing tenants increasingly face Section 21 notices as landlords restructure properties to capture premium rental prices from affluent newcomers. Tower Hamlets’ large Bangladeshi community—many in extended, multi-generational housing arrangements—faces particular displacement vulnerability.

Southwark’s situation is compounded by infrastructure development around the Elephant & Castle regeneration. The borough has seen dramatic property appreciation, with landlords serving Section 21 notices to existing tenants before repositioning properties for higher-value tenants or owner-occupation.

Outer London’s Emerging Crisis: Havering, Bromley, and Sutton

While outer London boroughs maintain lower absolute eviction rates, they’re experiencing significant percentage increases that suggest emerging crises.

Havering (17.4% increase), Bromley (18.7%), and Sutton (17.9%) all recorded nearly 18% jumps since 2019, despite lower per-capita eviction rates. These boroughs are experiencing rapid value appreciation, making them attractive to buy-to-let investors expanding portfolios. Their more affordable housing costs relative to inner London make them particularly vulnerable to speculative investment and tenant displacement.

These boroughs’ eviction patterns also reflect demographic change. As inner London becomes increasingly unaffordable, younger families and lower-income workers relocate to outer boroughs, creating larger renter populations. These new renters—often unfamiliar with London’s housing market complexities—become attractive targets for aggressive landlord strategies.

The Interactive Data: Eviction Rates Across All 32 London Boroughs

To provide actionable data for renters, housing advocates, and policymakers, here’s the comprehensive borough-by-borough breakdown showing repossession rates, percentage changes since 2019, and 2025 landlord eviction filings:

Alarming Trends: Monthly Data Shows Acceleration into 2026

The most concerning pattern emerges from monthly trend analysis. While overall eviction rates rose 8% year-on-year nationally, London’s hardest-hit boroughs are experiencing much steeper escalation curves.

Newham’s monthly eviction filings show continuous escalation from 165 in January 2025 to 240 in October 2025. This represents sustained acceleration rather than seasonal fluctuation. If this trend continues through 2026, Newham could process 3,000+ eviction cases annually—potentially equating to 10,000+ individuals and families facing displacement.

Similarly, Barking & Dagenham climbed from 98 monthly filings in January to 155 by October—a 58% increase. Redbridge rose from 78 to 125—a 60% increase. These acceleration patterns suggest landlords are front-loading Section 21 evictions before the anticipated 2026 legislative ban takes effect.

The London average monthly eviction filings increased from 85 in January 2025 to 155 by October—an 82% increase across the entire capital. This acceleration is not distributed evenly; it’s concentrated in East London and increasingly spreading to North and South London boroughs.

Why the Geography Matters: Clustering and Landlord Investment Patterns

The data reveals that evictions are not randomly distributed across London. Instead, they cluster in specific boroughs with identifiable characteristics.

East London’s eviction crisis correlates strongly with property investment activity. Newham and Barking & Dagenham have been primary targets for buy-to-let portfolio expansion because they offer the best combination of affordable purchase prices and strong rental yields. When property investors purchase portfolios in these areas, they often displace existing long-term tenants through Section 21 notices, replacing them with short-term tenants who will accept higher rents or irregular tenancy terms.

North London’s increasing eviction rates follow similar gentrification and regeneration patterns. Croydon’s Croydon Town Centre regeneration, Enfield’s property value appreciation, and Waltham Forest’s proximity to increasingly expensive Central London create landlord incentives for tenant displacement and rent restructuring.

Central London’s eviction crisis reflects gentrification pressures more than new investment. Hackney, Tower Hamlets, and Southwark—traditionally working-class communities—are experiencing generational property ownership transitions. As properties change hands, new landlords (often investors rather than long-term owner-occupiers) implement more aggressive rental strategies, including Section 21 evictions.

Conversely, boroughs with slower eviction growth (Bexley, Richmond, Sutton) tend to have lower property value appreciation, less speculative investment activity, and more established owner-occupier housing markets. These communities have stronger social cohesion and more stable tenancy structures.

The Temporary Accommodation Crisis: Where Evicted Residents Go

Every eviction creates housing instability that cascades through local authority temporary accommodation systems. The data reveals a shocking correlation between eviction rates and temporary accommodation burdens.

Newham houses 55.35 households per 1,000 in temporary accommodation—nearly 3x the London average of 19.2. This reflects the borough’s extreme eviction crisis. When residents are evicted, many lack resources to secure private rental accommodation at market rates and must turn to their local authority for emergency housing. Newham’s temporary accommodation capacity is severely strained, with families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, shared hostels, and temporary properties unsuitable for long-term habitation.

The temporary accommodation crisis has profound downstream effects. Children in temporary accommodation experience interrupted schooling, reduced academic achievement, and psychological trauma. Parents face employment instability because temporary housing addresses may not permit employment registrations, or commute times to jobs become untenable. Health services become fragmented as residents move repeatedly between temporary locations.

Southwark (28.05 per 1,000) and Westminster (27.27 per 1,000) face similar temporary accommodation pressures, reflecting their high eviction rates and low availability of affordable permanent housing. Lambeth (24.6 per 1,000) and Tower Hamlets (25.8 per 1,000) also show severely strained systems.

In contrast, boroughs with lower eviction rates like Bexley (5.05 per 1,000) and Richmond upon Thames (7.6 per 1,000) maintain more manageable temporary accommodation populations, suggesting that preventing evictions in the first place is far more cost-effective and humane than responding to eviction crises through emergency accommodation systems.

Who Are the Landlords Driving Evictions? Institutional Investors vs Individual Landlords

The Ministry of Justice data doesn’t distinguish between evictions issued by individual landlords versus institutional investors, but secondary research reveals important patterns.

Approximately 25% of London evictions are now issued through corporate entities, including buy-to-let portfolio companies, property investment firms, and arm’s-length local authority housing companies. These institutional landlords operate with different incentive structures than individual landlords. They’re pursuing portfolio optimization and yield maximization; they’re less likely to have personal relationships with tenants or communities; and they can absorb eviction costs (legal fees, court appearances) more easily than can individual landlords.

Private equity firms and foreign institutional investors have increasingly acquired London rental portfolios, particularly following the pandemic. These entities view tenant displacement as routine portfolio management rather than as a significant social or moral matter. They standardize tenancy agreements, reduce maintenance budgets, and aggressively raise rents—all strategies that increase eviction risk.

The concentration of evictions in specific boroughs like Newham likely reflects geographic clustering of institutional landlord portfolios. A single corporate entity might own 200+ properties in Newham’s lower-cost areas; when this entity decides to restructure the portfolio, it might file Section 21 notices across dozens of properties simultaneously.

Individual landlords driving the remaining 75% of evictions often cite different motivations. Some genuinely need to move back into properties; others cite maintenance or renovation requirements (though the data suggests many serve Section 21 notices simply to access higher-rent tenants). The distinction matters because individual landlords might be more receptive to policy interventions like “rent stabilization” clauses or “section 8 only” requirements that maintain their property ownership flexibility while preventing no-fault eviction displacement.

The Renters’ Rights Bill Delay: How Legislative Postponement Accelerates Evictions

Understanding the eviction spike requires understanding the legislative timeline. The Labour government was elected in July 2024 with an explicit manifesto commitment to “immediately abolish no-fault evictions.” However, by October 2025—over a year later—the Renters’ Rights Bill had not yet received Royal Assent, with implementation delayed until 2026.

This delay has created perverse incentives. Landlords who believe Section 21 will become unavailable in 2026 are accelerating their eviction timelines. The October 2025 Landlord Zone investigation revealed that councils are using arm’s-length companies to circumvent anticipated restrictions. Landlords are filing batch Section 21 notices to evict multiple tenants before legal reform takes effect.

The Renters Reform Coalition estimates that each month of delay in implementing the Section 21 ban results in approximately 950 additional households losing their homes through no-fault evictions. Between July 2024 (when Labour came to power) and October 2025 (15 months of delay), this suggests approximately 14,250 additional evictions have occurred nationwide due to legislative delays alone. In London, this likely translates to 4,500+ excess evictions occurring purely due to the government’s failure to implement promised reform promptly.

The bill, when implemented in 2026, will provide several protections: new tenants will have a 12-month “protected period” where Section 21 evictions cannot be served; landlords will need to prove legitimate reasons (like owner-occupation) with specific notice requirements; and periodic tenancies will replace fixed-term agreements, requiring explicit landlord action to end. However, until the bill becomes law, tenants remain vulnerable to the existing Section 21 regime.

Why Section 21 Bans Fail to Eliminate Evictions: What Comes After 2026

It’s important to note that abolishing Section 21 will not eliminate housing instability or even evictions themselves. When the bill is implemented, landlords will likely shift to increased use of Section 8 evictions (which require cause, but are available for rent arrears, property damage, or antisocial behavior) and will also accelerate portfolio exits by selling properties.

Buy-to-let landlords who oppose Section 21 abolition argue they use evictions to evict “problem tenants” engaging in antisocial behavior. Data suggests this is somewhat exaggerated; the vast majority of Section 21 notices involve tenants who’ve done nothing wrong but are simply deemed lower-value by landlords pursuing higher-rent strategies. However, Section 8 evictions for genuine antisocial behavior or severe rent arrears will remain available and may increase.

Institutional economists debate whether Section 21 abolition will reduce housing instability or merely shift eviction mechanisms. Some argue that removing easy eviction mechanisms will increase landlord screening, making it harder for marginal renters to access housing initially. Others counter that security of tenure (not being evicted without cause) is so fundamental that even this trade-off is worthwhile.

Regardless, the 2026 implementation provides a temporal marker. Anyone seeking information about their borough’s eviction crisis should understand that 2025-2026 represents a critical transition period. Tenants are at maximum risk during this window; once Section 21 abolition takes effect, the form of housing instability will change but won’t disappear entirely.

Practical Implications: What These Statistics Mean for Renters

The borough-by-borough data carries immediate practical implications for renters, housing advocates, and policymakers.

For residents of high-risk boroughs like Newham, Barking & Dagenham, and East London more broadly, the statistical reality is stark: roughly 1 in 150 households faces eviction proceedings during each quarter. This is not a distant probability; it’s a regular, recurring event affecting friends, neighbors, and colleagues. Renters in these boroughs should take proactive steps including: (1) maintaining meticulously documented rent payment records; (2) understanding their legal rights regarding Section 21 notice periods; (3) joining tenant unions or community organizations providing eviction resistance support; (4) having contact information for housing advice organizations like Shelter and Citizens Advice; and (5) understanding that they have legal options to resist unfair evictions, including challenging improper notice service or contesting unreasonable rent increases.

For housing advocacy organizations, the data suggests that community organizing efforts should prioritize East London and increasingly focus on North London boroughs like Enfield and Croydon. These areas have sufficient eviction concentrations that grassroots tenant unions and community organizations could potentially block mass evictions or negotiate better terms for residents.

For local authorities, the temporary accommodation data should trigger urgent policy interventions. Newham’s 55.35 temporary accommodation rate is unsustainable and wastes council resources on emergency response rather than prevention. Investing in rental support programs, tenant legal representation, and landlord engagement to prevent evictions would be far more cost-effective than emergency temporary accommodation provision.

For policymakers and the Mayor of London, the data suggests that local authority-level interventions face severe constraints if the Section 21 ban remains delayed. The data further supports arguments that the Renters’ Rights Bill implementation should be prioritized as urgent legislation rather than routine parliamentary business.

Long-Term Projections: What to Expect in 2026 and Beyond

Extrapolating current trends provides sobering projections for London’s rental market.

If London’s 8% annual eviction increase continues, London could expect approximately 5,464 no-fault evictions in 2026—an additional 779 evictions compared to 2024. However, monthly acceleration data suggests the increase could be steeper. If Newham and similar boroughs continue their 45% year-on-year acceleration, London could face 6,000+ no-fault evictions in 2026 before the Section 21 ban takes effect.

The cascading impact on temporary accommodation would be severe. If eviction numbers reach 6,000, and if these evictions result in temporary accommodation placements for 60% of affected households (conservative estimate given current Newham statistics), London could face 3,600+ additional temporary accommodation cases annually. At current temporary accommodation costs of approximately £20,000-£30,000 per household annually, this represents £72-£108 million in additional council spending required.

These figures don’t account for the human cost: 6,000 evictions affecting approximately 12,000-15,000 individuals, including 4,000-5,000 children experiencing housing instability, educational disruption, and psychological trauma.

FAQs: Common Questions About London’s Eviction Crisis

Q: Why is Newham being hit so much harder than other boroughs?

A: Newham’s crisis reflects multiple converging factors: affordable property prices attracting buy-to-let investment; existing tenant populations with fewer resources to resist displacement; strong rental demand from new residents seeking affordable housing; and regeneration activity around Stratford that creates landlord incentives for portfolio restructuring. The borough’s relatively high poverty rates and large non-UK-born population also make residents more vulnerable to displacement.

Q: Will the Section 21 ban actually solve the eviction crisis?

A: Section 21 abolition will eliminate no-fault evictions but won’t eliminate all housing instability. Landlords will likely increase Section 8 evictions (for rent arrears or antisocial behavior) and property sales, both of which remove residents from their homes. However, removing easy displacement mechanisms should provide meaningful tenure security for compliant tenants. The ban is necessary but insufficient; it must be paired with rental affordability controls and housing supply expansion.

Q: What can I do if I receive a Section 21 notice?

A: First, verify that the notice was served correctly and contains all required information. Seek immediate advice from Shelter, Citizens Advice, or local tenant organizations. Consider requesting a rent deposit replacement rather than displacement; propose reduced rent increase agreements; or explore mediation through your local authority. About 15% of Section 21 notices are vulnerable to legal challenge or can be resolved through negotiation.

Q: Why don’t councils just provide more temporary accommodation?

A: Councils operate under severe budget constraints, with temporary accommodation costs consuming 10%+ of housing budgets in some boroughs. Temporary accommodation is extremely expensive and provides no long-term solution. Prevention (keeping people in permanent housing) is far more cost-effective than emergency response. The answer to the temporary accommodation crisis is prevention through eviction reduction and affordable housing supply expansion, not expansion of temporary accommodation capacity.

Q: Are there neighborhoods within boroughs where eviction risk is highest?

A: Within each borough, eviction risk correlates with neighborhood deprivation levels, rental housing concentrations, and property value appreciation. In Newham, areas around Stratford and Walthamstow have higher eviction risks. In Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel and the Isle of Dogs have elevated risk. But detailed neighborhood-level data requires local authority research; the borough-level data provided here represents the current publicly available level of granularity.

Q: How can renters protect themselves from eviction?

A: Essential steps include maintaining immaculate rent payment records; understanding tenancy agreement terms fully; knowing your legal rights regarding notice periods and eviction procedures; joining tenant organizations or unions; seeking early legal advice if problems emerge; and building community relationships that provide mutual support and eviction resistance capacity. The most important protection remains the Section 21 ban once implemented; until then, preparation and community organization provide the best defense.

Q: Which boroughs should renters prioritize for moving to if seeking stability?

A: Boroughs with lower percentage increases and lower absolute eviction rates (like Bexley, Richmond upon Thames, and Hounslow) show more housing market stability. However, these boroughs are increasingly being discovered by property investors seeking rental yields. The ultimate answer requires balancing eviction risk against rental affordability, commute times, and community factors specific to individual renters.

Policy Recommendations: What Needs to Change

The data presented here points toward specific policy interventions that could reduce London’s eviction crisis.

Immediate (2025-2026): Accelerate Section 21 ban implementation to 2025 rather than delaying to 2026. Each month of delay triggers approximately 950 excess evictions nationwide; eliminating this delay could prevent 11,400+ evictions. This should be the government’s highest legislative priority, requiring parliamentary expedited procedures if necessary.

Short-term (2026-2027): Once Section 21 is abolished, implement robust rent stabilization policies limiting annual rent increases. London boroughs should introduce “Rent Stability Zones” where annual rent increases are capped at 3-5% above inflation, protecting existing tenants while still providing landlords reasonable returns. Such policies exist in other global cities and demonstrably reduce eviction rates.

Medium-term (2027-2029): Massively expand affordable housing supply through council housing development, housing association partnerships, and private developer obligations. London needs approximately 65,000 new affordable homes annually; current production is approximately 15,000. The eviction crisis is fundamentally a housing supply crisis; without addressing supply, other policies provide only marginal relief.

Long-term (2029+): Implement systematic landlord regulation, including mandatory licensing for buy-to-let properties, standardized tenancy agreements protecting baseline tenant rights, and transparency requirements for institutional investors owning London rental portfolios. These mechanisms would reduce information asymmetries and give tenants better power to negotiate fair terms.

Specific to High-Risk Boroughs: Newham, Barking & Dagenham, and similar East London boroughs should receive targeted resources including enhanced legal representation for tenants facing eviction, community organizing support, and eviction prevention funds allowing councils to negotiate with landlords rather than accept displacement.

Conclusion: The 2026 Crossroads

London stands at a critical juncture in its rental housing crisis. The data presented here demonstrates that Section 21 no-fault evictions have reached crisis levels, with projected increases suggesting conditions could worsen substantially in 2026 before legislative reform takes effect.

East London faces unprecedented displacement pressures, with Newham experiencing eviction rates 58% above pre-pandemic levels. This concentration of eviction activity reflects gentrification pressures, property speculation, and the availability of relatively affordable property for buy-to-let investment. The crisis increasingly spreads to North and South London as investor attention shifts from saturated East London markets to emerging opportunities.

The temporary accommodation crisis cascading from eviction surges demonstrates that the social cost of displacement extends far beyond individual tenant hardship. Entire boroughs face strained public services, disrupted children’s education, and public health consequences from housing instability.

The delayed implementation of the Renters’ Rights Bill appears to accelerate rather than decelerate eviction activity, as landlords front-load no-fault evictions before anticipated legal reform. This perverse outcome demonstrates the importance of urgent legislative implementation once parliamentary procedures permit.

For renters, housing advocates, policymakers, and community organizations, the data here provides actionable information for understanding geographic crisis concentrations, identifying high-risk areas, and prioritizing intervention resources. The 2026 data will likely show whether current trends continue accelerating or whether legislative and policy interventions begin reversing the decade-long eviction crisis.

London’s housing market, once celebrated as globally competitive and dynamic, now faces a rental crisis with few parallels in other developed cities. The choice to address this crisis through prevention (Section 21 abolition, rent stabilization, supply expansion) or crisis management (temporary accommodation expansion) will define London’s housing market for the next decade. The data suggests that prevention must take absolute priority.

To read more, London City News