Sulejman Kamara has been trapped in a hotel for two years. The builder, his wife and two autistic children lost their home of eight years in Kilburn, north-west London, after their landlord served them a no-fault eviction. 

They never got back their deposit, and lost several possessions in the eventual bailiff-enforced eviction in 2022.

“It was shocking to have to leave like that with our two kids,” he told Byline Times. "Imagine having to leave so suddenly with a one year old."

They were also left homeless as local estate agents refused to show them family homes because they did not meet financial requirements, which Sulejman says included having an external guarantor and being able to pay several months rent upfront.

After asking Brent Council for help, the family were moved to a nearby hotel where they shared one mould-ridden room. That was supposed to last just a few weeks as it is unlawful for councils to accommodate families in temporary accommodation that is a privately-owned B&B for more than 6 weeks. But, two year later the family is still living in that same, single, room and things have got worse.

Campaigners from the charity Shelter line Parliament Square with boxes of household items while calling on the government to end 'no-fault' eviction in July 2023. Photo: Zuma Press / Alamy

The council stopped giving the family housing duty a year ago after they rejected a permanent property it offered that their doctor and school said was unsafe for their children. The council classed the family as making themselves ‘intentionally homeless’, a council-determined category that strips people of access to support. It means someone is homeless because of something they did, or failed to do.

Sulejman and his wife now pay £1,500 a month for a room, are unable to get a new home from the council and can't access the private rental market, despite both working. Brent Council told Byline Times it can't "reopen the housing duty" to the family.

The family is just one of almost 105,000 households living in temporary accommodation in the UK and struggling to get out of it, and one of thousands of victims of no-fault evictions. In March, The Guardian reported that some children are now spending their entire childhoods in temporary accommodation and that thousands of families had been housed in it for more than a decade. The publication said the homelessness crisis is "spiralling out of control".

Last week marks five years since the Conservative Government first pledged to outlaw the practice. On March 1, London Mayor Sadiq Khan demanded the Government finally act on its promise to protect renters as City Hall analysis found that more than 30,000 renting households in the capital have faced a Section 21 ‘no-fault eviction’ claim since 2019.

But despite a formal Renters (Reform) Bill finally entering Parliament in May 2023 pledging to end no-fault evictions, extensive lobbying by landlords and Conservative MPs has seen it heavily watered down, and the proposed ban on no-fault evictions at best being delayed, potentially indefinitely.

In the meantime, the number of no-fault eviction notices served in England increased by almost a third (28%) in 2023, the highest rate since 2016 - 30,230 landlords started court proceedings against their tenants.

Byline Times spoke to those forced out through the practice to gauge what the impact of the delay would have.

Nico had lived in the same Brighton flat for eight years before their landlord told them they had to move out. They planned to sell the building to a new owner, and last month Nico received a notice ordering them to leave. 

"I'm disabled and don’t work so I'm reliant on benefits system, which obviously is difficult enough in itself. But almost impossible when it comes to trying to find somewhere to live,” they told Byline Times.

“And I've never actually been in this situation before when I haven't been working.”

Research in 2022 by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism of tens of thousands of rental properties, found 98% of those advertised over a single month were beyond the means of people received universal credit or housing benefit. Analysis by the Financial Times suggested that the last time house prices were this expensive relative to incomes was in the 1870s. The average house price in the 12 months to January 2024 in England was £299,000, according to Government figures.  The average salary, across all industry sectors in the UK, was £34,900 pre-tax, according to figures published in March.

Nico’s landlord has been talking about the eviction for months, but has not given any firm timeline as to when they need to leave by, leaving them "in a constant state of stress and anxiety".

"To not know – it makes you feel insecure and vulnerable,” Nico said. 

"The possibility of becoming homeless is very real, and it's terrifying one. I've been homeless before many years ago and it was horrible. My health right now is very different to what it used to be then and I wouldn’t be able to cope with it now.

“It feels like you’re in a bog and can’t quite get out. It’s suffocating, and it’s terrifying,” they add.

Journalist Ruby Lott-Lavigna has covered the housing crisis for the likes of openDemocracy and Vice, so stories like Nico's are all too familiar. But she's also has first-hand experience, having been served a no-fault eviction notice in February - her second in two years.

"It's bonkers when your own reporting suddenly becomes your life,” she told Byline Times. 

“Being constantly evicted, or constantly at risk of eviction, leaves you in this permanent state of insecurity. It means I can’t put roots down wherever I live. 

"It means I can’t build that relationship with the local cafe that I was going to, or no longer contribute to the community garden that I wanted to get involved in. It creates this permanent instability in a societal sense. It also is just emotionally very uprooting.

“You can’t think about trying out a new career, or even dating someone new. So many of those decisions are so tied to your housing that you're stuck in a way.”

What made Ruby's latest eviction all the worse is that it was done, she claims, in retaliation, after she pushed back against constant, often unaccounted visits from her landlord or people working for them.

Most tenants have a legal right to “quiet enjoyment” of their home which entitles them to be left alone by the landlord or those working for them unless necessary – and even then they should give a day’s warning before visiting.

But as the name suggests, a no-fault eviction means a landlord doesn’t have to give a reason to evict a tenant. It also means they can, and frequently do, use the power to evict tenants for making complaints about them failing to make repairs and breaking the law.

A report by Citizens Advice in 2018 found that renters in England who formally complain about issues such as damp and mould have an almost one-in-two (46%) chance of being issued an eviction notice within six months.

"It's infuriating that something as petty as this can result in a complete change of mine and my housemates’ lives,” Ruby said. “It's even more maddening that this was legislation that was promised to be banned five years ago.”

She continued: "The Conservatives for too long have played politics like it's a game, not peoples’ lives. And that is exactly what you see with the Renter's Reform Bill, because every day more people get made redundant, or like me are gonna get evicted."

Just weeks after a damning survey revealed that less than a quarter of people are still satisfied with the NHS, a new poll has found that just more than a third think people should pay for some services.

Byline Times previously reported how public satisfaction with the NHS and social care had plummeted, according to a survey by The King's Fund and the Nuffield Trust – with just 13% of people questioned thinking it was acceptable.

A poll by Omnisis/WeThink for Byline Times recently asked participants if the NHS should be free at the point of use or if there should be charges for some services. A striking 31% of respondents said they believe there should be charges, with 69% saying that it should remain free.

When asked if private healthcare companies should have greater involvement in the NHS, 39% agreed. Just under a third, 29%, said that private firms should maintain the same level of support, and 32% wanted them to have less to do with the health service.

Last month, NHS consultant David Oliver questioned in Byline Times whether 'stealth NHS privatisation was happening in plain sight', making the case that the World Health Organisation defines it as occurring “where non-government bodies become increasingly involved in the financing or provision of health care services”.

To further his point, Oliver noted that dentistry, community pharmacy, and eye-testing had been provided by the private sector for many years, along with support services, such as catering, car parking, cleaning, security and maintenance, and records storage. NHS trusts are also saddled with debts from the private finance initiative (PFI) for building and maintenance of facilities, he wrote.

When asked if things had worsened since 2010, the Omnisis/WeThink results echoed the findings of the analysis by The King's Fund and the Nuffield Trust in the past year’s British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA), with 67% of participants saying that their experience of the NHS had got worse since 2010.

The earlier survey found that less than a quarter of people were “very or quite satisfied” with the NHS. Satisfaction levels peaked in 2010, in the last year of the New Labour Government, when seven out of 10 people said they were satisfied with it.

The top reasons for respondents’ dissatisfaction were long waits for GP or hospital appointments (71%); staff shortages (54%); and a view that the Government does not spend enough on the health service (47%).

Almost half of respondents (48%) would support the Government increasing taxes and spending more on the NHS, with that view most prevalent in people with the highest household income. While 42% felt that taxation and spending should remain the same. Some 6% wanted cuts.

The BSA results came just weeks after the annual NHS Staff Survey which mirrored public attitudes. It revealed that 30% of respondents felt burnt out by their work, and 34% found it emotionally exhausting.

I am a parent carer to a 21-year-old who is non-verbal, has complex medical needs, and is severely disabled. While I fight a system that creates too many challenges and expects too much from those who provide care to loved ones, I am also battling heart failure.

I was born with congenital heart disease and was fitted with my first pacemaker following the birth of my daughter, Francesca. Caring for her, and the lack of sleep that entails, my cardiologist believes caused me to suffer a pulmonary oedema, a condition in which fluid builds up in the lungs, making it difficult to breathe, in 2022.

Before becoming a parent, I worked as cabin crew, which allowed me to explore the world. My daughter's increasing dependence, and my forever-expanding role as her carer, now means I barely get away at all.

Holidays, having a meal with friends, being able to attend my medical appointments, or even getting a good night's sleep aren't guaranteed.

Many unpaid carers are left to look after their relative in excess of 90 hours a week – more than twice the length, 36.7 hours, of the average working week for Brits.

To receive carers allowance, you must provide at least 35 hours per week, but there is no limit to the amount of hours you might do. The allowance – when applied to a 90-hour-week – works out at less than £1 an hour.

Unlike for those employed in carer roles, there are no working time regulations and so no protections. No breaks, annual leave, sick leave, or uninterrupted rest periods. We are expected to carry on, day after day, with little or no sleep. That's why many carers don’t need alarm clocks – because their shifts never end.

In any other context, this would never be tolerated.

Some carers may be lucky enough to catch a break, but it is not guaranteed, and many are left begging and having to justify their need to get time off, over and again. Imagine having to do this simply to attend medical appointments, do the weekly shop, or get some fresh air.

Even if you're lucky enough to get respite, it can be cancelled at short notice because of a shortage of skilled and reliable carers in the social care system. Often, any time off is spent filling out the latest form or appeal, to justify the need for equipment or funding.

The crisis in the social care system is leaving unpaid carers not only overworked, but picking up every broken piece of a system that just doesn't work. It is simply not fair.

My own experiences – particularly when in hospital with my daughter – have meant that I have had to ask someone to help when I need to go to the toilet, have a shower, or go and get food as her difficulties mean that she can't be left alone. I am 47 years old, yet I'm having to seek permission to do the simplest of things.

There should be no expectation that people in caring roles should remain on the job 24 hours a day and be denied the ability to do things that a paid employee – such as a nurse or support worker – would do. Basic things: like eat, sleep, use the bathroom, and have time off.

Many unpaid carers are being left in this situation, whether it is at home or while they are in hospital with their relative. We are human beings and we have the same needs as everyone else.

Expecting unpaid carers to work continuous shifts is also a health and safety risk as we are both their driver and nurse, administering medications, often on no sleep. This is accepted, as it saves the Government money.

As a consequence of their stay-at-home role, many unpaid carers have to give up their careers and, along with them, their salaries and pensions. Instead, they receive an allowance of £81.90 per week – £11.70 a day. Divided by the minimum of 35 hours of care required a week to qualify, the payment equates to £2.34 an hour.

Broken down further, for the 47% of unpaid carers doing 90 hours care a week and it's 0.91p an hour. Some unpaid carers, depending on the number of hours they care per week, can earn on top of their allowance – but even this is restricted by the Government to £151 per week.

On average, disabled households need an additional £975 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. Eighty-odd pounds isn't enough, and restricting what someone can earn beyond that is cruel. Many carers are being pushed into poverty, left reliant on food banks, fundraising and grants.

The amount of hours a week unpaid carers are expected to do – or more accurately, left to do – would normally be covered by a team of carers, not just one person.

Unpaid carers are not 'unsung heroes’ or 'volunteers’, as the Government likes to call them. They are neglected, exhausted, human beings who are being exploited.

Something needs to change, both in terms of the hours we are expected to care, and the amount we receive for the sacrifice and commitment we make for our loved ones. Enough is enough.

Brexit "wrecked" the London stock market and the "consequences have been disastrous", a leading writer on the economy has said while suggesting the level of underperformance is so "serious and astonishing" it should be front-page news and a source of "anguish debates" in parliament and in the media.

Simon Nixon, one time chief leader writer for The Times, former chief European commentator on the Wall Street Journal and the author of The Wealth of Nations Substack, gave a deeply sobering analysis of Britain's financial failings on the latest Byline Times Podcast, out now.

He spoke with host Adrian Goldberg after publishing a post on April 8 headlined - 'How Brexit Wrecked the Stock Market' - which labelled the decline so "shocking" that it is "no longer a global humiliation but a national crisis". And, he warned: "Bad policy choices threaten to make it worse."

The London stock exchange has been underperforming since Brexit and shows few signs it will recover. Photo: PA Images / Alamy

"Sometimes you don’t appreciate what you have got until it is gone. How soon before Britons wake up to the national disaster that is unfolding in the stock market," Nixon asked at the start of his post. Rather than an example of "British exceptionalism", the FTSE 100 is now the "exception" to a global recovery, he noted, explaining how, since the beginning of January, it is up just 2.4%. US shares are up almost 10%. Japan over 18%. Germany 9%.

But, the sluggishness and stagnation isn't new, UK stocks have been "dramatically underperforming against the rest of the world since the Brexit referendum", he wrote. As an example, Nixon noted on his Substack, that a £100 investment in the FTSE 100 in June 2016 would now be worth £118. The same investment in the US would be worth £250; Italy, £189. UK equities currently trade at a 20% discount to the broader European market on a price-to-earnings basis and a 15% per cent discount on a price-to-book basis - both near decades’ lows, Nixon added. Before Brexit, they traded at a premium. Poor valuations in London have also contributed to a collapse in the number of listed companies - down nearly 50% in 2023 alone - and new listings have "almost entirely dried up".

Nixon's assessment on the current state of play: "The stock market is sending a devastating message about the way that Britain is perceived among global investors. No amount of boosterish bluster can hide the fact that Britain is a global outlier, nor should anyone be under any illusions about the consequences for the economy if this underperformance continues. This is no longer just an issue of concern for a few highly paid bankers in the City. It is an issue that goes to the heart of Britain’s economic model and long-term prospects."

Nixon told the Byline Times Podcast that the success of the stock market made London "the financial centre of Europe and the world", so what is happened now, "is a matter of huge consequence" and has "profound implications for Britain's future economic model".

"It means that a part of the economic model of Britain that people have taken for granted, is changing. And that is something we need to confront and think about."

In his Substack post, Nixon said the stock market is being "de-globalised, a historic reversal of a decades-long trend". Investors, he told the Byline Times Podcast, are now "shunning" London because of Brexit and the "political chaos" that came with it: "Britain has become an unattractive, risky place to invest your money". Now that money is managed globally, and London is about 4% of the global equity pool, "it's an easy one to skip if you just don't like the look of it".

"The irony is that it was the very success of the stock market that sowed the seeds of the current crisis," Nixon wrote on his Substack where he went on to explain how as the wealth of London grew, so to did "resentment across the country, fuelled by the global financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent bailouts".

The City's wealth never "trickled down", inequalities grew and "this resentment was unquestionably a key factor in the Brexit vote of 2016, when half the country exacted their revenge on what they considered an arrogant global elite".

The stock market, Nixon explained, not only helped to define Britain's economy but it also shaped the politics "contributing to this lopsided economy", and in a sense became "a victim of its own success".

While Brexit voters were fuelled in part by "resentment", Brexiteers, were ignorant, and took the City for granted, Nixon said: "I think they'd come to assume that it was something inherent in Britain that it was a British exceptionalism that Britain just had the City back it always did."

Rather, Nixon explained to the Byline Times Podcast, "the City has come less to rely on British exceptionalism, but has come to depend, actually, on it being anchored in this giant single market. And that was something that wasn't understood. It clearly wasn't understood because Boris Johnson and his Brexit deal, didn't even try to seek a deal for the City."

On 23 June 2016, 51.9% of Brits voted in favour of the leaving the EU, but that didn't actually happen until 31 January 2020. The stock market's underperformance, Nixon said, "really starts to kick in, in June 2016, and it's never recovered".

The demise of the stock market, Nixon told the podcast, puts an entire ecosystem at risk, including lawyers and bankers, accountants, brokers and PR advisers who are also "sitting there looking at empty profit pools".

Goldberg pointed out that the British public, battling a cost of living crisis, probably wouldn't have much sympathy for people in highly-paid positions, before Nixon explained that without their contributions government spending on public services would be impacted, making things worse for everyone.

Nixon said he'd been writing about the underperformance of the stock market since Brexit, and the response had been that once the deal was done, "the gap will close", or that once the Conservatives "get a stable government" foreign bidders will come in, "but it's not happening, and it hasn't happened".

The journalist said arguments over regulations and tax incentives, were missing the point, as "this is primarily a sentiment problem first and foremost, and it's hard to see how one escapes that". The issue, Nixon said, is "something that has been alarming people in the City now for several years."

Goldberg questioned Nixon about whether rejoining the European Union could help solve the problem, but the writer didn't think that would ever happen, and explained to even "get to that point, would take years and would be hugely, politically contested, creating more instability". Nixon noted in his Substack that the fallout from Brexit is onluy "destined to get worse" as the grace periods in Johnson's exit-deal expire, and as EU regulators attempt to lure more business from London.

Nixon said Labour's challenge when they - in all likelihood become the next Government - will be to not fix the problem, but to stop things from "getting worse".

And the bigger danger, Nixon wrote on Substack, is that history will repeat, that "the stock market will shape Britain’s future, just as it did its past".