Councils should not tell tenants to stay in property during eviction process claims government

Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 22/04/2026 – 14:15
I have an email that the tenant sent to me outlining the advise the homeless team gave her. The below is an extract of the email I received. I have not had to put this into the courts via the solicitors. Whilst the councils/homeless advise tenants not to leave they FAIL to tell tenants that the landlord can make a claim for the costs which may put the tenant in financial difficulty and places a CCJ on their credit file.
________________________________________________________________
I have been advised by the council’s homelessness team not to leave the property when the section 21 expires unless I have secured alternative accommodation, so please accept this as notification I will not be leaving the property on 13/04/2026.

Under the legal eviction process, I am not required to leave the property on the date stated in the notice. A landlord must obtain a possession order and, if necessary, a warrant of possession enforcement before I can be legally evicted.
I am following the advice I have been given so I do not make myself intentionally homeless as this would affect the support they are able to provide me.

Reply to the comment left by Sheralyne Stamp at 14:37
This is where the Homelessness Act is nebulous.
Councils should be registering a Tenant in receipt of a Sec 21 Notice as Homeless or potentially Homeless. Councils don’t like to do this as it makes their statistics look worse.
If a Council registers a Sec 21’d tenant on their register and gives them appropriate advice ( like look for another property for let ) keeps them on their register, consults the landlord etc, then its permissible for a Council to tell a tenant not to move out at end of Sec 21 notice.
The Homelessness situation should always be kept under review by the Council as the implications of the tenant having to pay a court fee ( £404 ) for a Possession hearing is made clear to Councils.
Councils could ‘play the nefariousness of the Homelessness Act and still be justified in telling tenants to remain until a Bailiff.
Where the ‘lazy’ Councils fall foul, is in just fobbing tenants who come to them with sec 21, straight off.
If the Homelessness Act wasn’t written so vaguely, and expressly said Councils should accommodate Tenant with Sec 21 by the end of the Sec 21 date,- that would be totally unrealistic, as we all know councils don’t have the resources.

Government should focus on their job of protecting the country from rapid and unplanned population growth.

Councils do not have a pool of available housing.

Of course, encouraging one tenant to drag the process out often means that a property is not available to another occupant. It also increases costs and clogs up the courts system with pointless administration.

In the meantime, government could ease the situation by pausing their relentless attack on private landlords. Maybe then there would be fewer good tenants losing their homes.

When we only have section 8 and the reason involves a breach of contract the council won’t care either way. The tenants will have ‘made themselves homeless’ and so will be off the books, not their problem!

My understanding is that if a valid notice is served by the Landlord and the tenant does not leave then the council can sit on their hands however if the landlord gets an eviction order from the court then the council needs to treat them as homeless. Due to resources councils are telling the tenants to wait until the bailiff arrives which is not illegal but against the code and have had to pay compensation if the landlord brings this to the ombudsman. It’s really a game of who will blink first between tenant, landlord and council all having financial reasons to hold their ground. The homeless department is overwhelmed and its only going to get worst.

Worth sending the tenants a copy of the Homelessness code of Guidance with the appropriate sections highlighted. Section 6.35 is even in BOLD…

The Secretary of State considers that where an applicant is:

(a) an assured shorthold tenant who has received a valid notice in accordance with section 21 of the Housing Act 1988;

(b) the housing authority is satisfied that the landlord intends to seek possession and further efforts from the housing authority to resolve the situation and persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to remain in the property are unlikely to be successful; and,

(c) there would be no defence to an application for a possession order;

then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice, unless the housing authority is taking steps to persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found.

6.36 The Secretary of State considers that it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord.

6.37 Housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation up until the point at which a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce an order for possession.

6.38 Housing authorities should ensure that homeless families and vulnerable individuals who are owed a section 188 interim accommodation duty or section 193(2) main housing duty are not evicted through the enforcement of an order for possession as a result of a failure by the authority to make suitable accommodation available to them.

——————————-
Make it clear to the tenant, that if they do not leave by the date the S21 expires – they will be personally responsible for all costs associated with gaining possession.

They then need to go back to the council and state that unless the council offer them alternative accommodation, by staying past the expiry date they would be in a worse financial situation – and so as a result, they cannot be accused of making themselves voluntarily homeless at any point before notice expiry.

will be borne by them. In turn they should make it clear to the council that this in itself means they will be in a worse and more detrimental position than they would be if the council had not provided alternative accommodation.

They can clearly show the councils refusal to find alternative accommodation means they are being forced into debt though no fault of their own – so any claim by the authority of making themselves intentionally homeless is unjustified.

Reply to the comment left by Jason at 23/04/2026 – 07:51
they can, but if the tenant also knew how to properly challenge this, and pushed citing the legislation and guidance, things might be different.

I think tenants are also scared of facing up to the council – at the end of the day, they will inevitably still be entirely dependant on them for accommodation going forward.

Reply to the comment left by Jason at 23/04/2026 – 07:51
I think the trick might be for the LL to arm the T with the guidance and legislation and Ombudsman case findings so they feel empowered to front up to the Council.

Saying that, there are cases I believe where a LL has raised this with the Social Housing Ombudsman and won – recognition that councils are not doing their job properly and as a result it does have financial impacts on the LL, and which the councils can be liable for.

Scenario

T notifies council he has been given a S21. Within 56 days Council agree T under the threat of homelessness. Nothing happens and its the day the S21 expires.

The S21 is valid, there were no defence to it, the landlord was contacted and stated there was no way the tenancy could be sustained (or no contact made with the LL at all by the LA).

All the boxes are ticked. The guidance says it would be unreasonable for the Authority to say they should stay until bailiffs arrive so they hand back the key on the day S21 expires and walk up to the Council and declare they are homeless.

The council does what?

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 23/04/2026 – 12:10
I believe the council will do nothing because the tenant is voluntarily homeless as he could have stayed until the bailiff called.