Council advising tenant not to vacate after being issued with Section 21?
3 years ago | 36 comments
Councils should not tell tenants to stay in property during eviction process claims government
9:31 AM, 22nd April 2026, 2 days ago
25
Categories:
The government has confirmed councils should not be telling tenants to stay in a property when facing eviction.
A story in The Telegraph says the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) has claimed “there is no excuse” for councils to be issuing this advice.
Property118 has previously investigated whether councils have been acting illegally when telling tenants to stay put.
Councils should not be encouraging tenants to stay
The Homelessness Code of Guidance makes clear that when someone is at risk of homelessness, councils are expected to take proactive steps to prevent it.
It specifically warns against delaying action, adding: “Housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation until eviction by a bailiff.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government told The Telegraph that councils should not be advising tenants to stay in a property until bailiffs arrive.
They told the newspaper: “Local authorities should not be encouraging all tenants to remain in their property until eviction by a bailiff.
“Every case should be assessed on its own merits, and councils are expected to provide appropriate support to help people secure safe and suitable accommodation if they are evicted.”
Stoking animosity between landlords and tenants
The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) accused councils of “stoking animosity between landlords and tenants” over telling tenants to stay put.
A spokesman told The Telegraph: “Rather than stoking animosity between landlords and tenants, councils must do their utmost to collaborate more closely with all parties to work out solutions which reduce costs and disruption for all parties.
“There is no excuse for advising tenants to ignore legitimate possession claims.”
Nathan Emerson, of Propertymark, added: “This approach contradicts the code of practice, which makes clear that councils should not adopt a blanket policy of telling tenants to stay put and wait for bailiffs to arrive.”
Made to feel like a villian
The process of advising tenants to remain in their rented home when facing eviction has been criticised, with landlords saying it increases stress for both tenants and landlords while adding legal costs and delays.
A landlord who wished to remain anonymous told The Telegraph that councils make them feel like “villains”.
They said: “It is standard practice now for councils to do this. You’re made to feel like the villain.
“You wait months to go to court, fight for a meaningless possession order date, re-apply to the court, pay again, wait and wait while your tenant is in arrears and then you eventually get bailiffs.
“After all this, I was asked later on to give a glowing reference for the tenant. I didn’t.”
Frustration and uncertainty
As previously reported by Property118, Canterbury City Council was found at fault by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The case involved a private landlord, known as Mr X, who served a Section 21 notice in February 2024 so he could carry out repair works. The notice expired in May, but the tenants did not leave, pointing to advice they received from the council.
The Ombudsman said the authority “did not contact Mr X, as the landlord, throughout the process, or consider whether it was reasonable for the tenant to remain in occupation during the relevant period”. That failure, it added, led to “frustration and uncertainty”.
A Canterbury City Council spokesperson told The Telegraph that while it offers legal advice to tenants facing eviction, it is not council policy to tell tenants to stay put until bailiffs arrive.
Tags:
councils, councils tell tenants to stay put, Eviction, government guidance, Homelessness prevention, NRLA
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Related Articles
Government hints at forcing social housing landlords to house homeless households
1 week ago | 13 comments
‘Councils perceive landlords as dubious and don’t understand their statutory duties’
3 years ago | 11 comments
Member Since December 2025 - Comments: 6
1:30 PM, 23rd April 2026, About 9 hours ago
What would be good would be if some solicitors got together and offered to sue councils nationwide to recoup all landlords extra costs plus compensation to both landlords and tenants for all events where councils have advised tenants to ignore court orders and stay put. Then like banks councils would be forced to pay out. At moment councils are advising tenants to Break The Law.
Member Since May 2016 - Comments: 1575 - Articles: 16
1:39 PM, 23rd April 2026, About 9 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by John Hole at 23/04/2026 – 13:30
Yes, but in majority of cases, Landlords don’t now what the Council have told Tenants and getting Tenants to be reliable witnesses – well ?
Member Since February 2022 - Comments: 206
2:57 PM, 23rd April 2026, About 7 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by John Hole at 23/04/2026 – 13:30
Would still be cheaper than paying for emergency accommodation. So they just carry on as they can’t lose, at least LL would get something.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
6:53 PM, 23rd April 2026, About 3 hours ago
Ombudsman upholds complaint by landlord over council advising tenants to stay in property after possession order
14.APR.2021
Brentwood Borough Council has been found by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to have caused injustice to a local landlord.
The Ombudsman said ‘Mr X’ was correct that the council failed to consider statutory guidance when it advised his tenants to remain in his property after a court made a possession order, which he said led to loss of rental income and additional court costs. He asked Brentwood to pay him £1,389.50 based on these factors.
In his report the Ombudsman said the council must have regard to the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
This stated the factors councils must consider to decide if it is reasonable for a private sector tenant served with a valid Section 21 Notice to remain in a property after the notice has expired.
Mr X decided in February 2019 not to renew Mr Y and Ms Z’s tenancy when it expired the following month though was willing for them to remain until July.
4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Housing
The couple stopped paying rent at the end of March and in May that year were served Section 21 and Section 8 notices to terminate their tenancy, on which arrears of £1,900 has accumulated.
They were told Mr X would make a claim for possession if they did not leave the property by 11 July 2019.
They contacted Brentwood but meanwhile arrears accumulated and Mr X secured a possession order.
Mr X set an eviction date in September 2019 for Mr Y and Ms Z, who by then owed him more than £5,000 in rent and his court costs.
He said that by advising his tenants to remain until the eviction date the council caused him to lose more rent and incur further court costs.
After Mr X complained Brentwood acknowledged some fault in that it could have been more pro-active in contacting Mr X to request information rather than relying on Mr Y to provide it, and offered to pay Mr X £1,127.52 for the loss of rental income.
The Ombudsman concluded: “It seems more likely than not that if the council had considered the advice in paragraph 6.36 of the code, and made contact with Mr X, they would have decided it was not reasonable for Mr Y and Ms Z to remain in the property.
“The injustice to Mr X is the additional lost rent and the cost of applying for a warrant for eviction. There would have been no need to make that application if the council had acted sooner to accommodate Mr Y and Ms Z.”
Brentwood agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £1,127.52 for lost rent, plus his £451.71 court costs and £100 for having misdirected him initially to the Housing Ombudsman.
The council has been approached for comment.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
7:03 PM, 23rd April 2026, About 3 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 23/04/2026 – 13:39
if the council doesn’t even attempt to approach the LL in order to see if the tenancy can be saved, then this is a breach of the code in itself.
If the Council did call it means they have received the S21 and are taking the ‘threat of homelessness’ seriously.
The LL could legitimately ask (in order for him to make a factual decision) the council to clarify their position in regard to what they would advise the tenant to then do if the LL were inclined to carry on with formal possession proceedings.
Could they make their offer to save the tenancy clear in writing to the LL?