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

This topic has been well hackneyed. Very many landords haved been vexed and fleeced by a multitudes of Councills and let it ride without a robult challenge.
A few years back one P118 member was prepared to launch an application for Judicial Review on one such case (not his own) and set up a crowd funding plan.
I subscribed to the extent of £100. I was the only one to do so! The organiser was surprised to say the least and my donation was refunded.
So I have little sympathy for those who are inactive in the fight for landlords.
Carchester

Reply to the comment left by Ray Guselli at 09:50
Yes agreed. I too have a copy of that letter by Brandon Lewis on my notice board. I thought that it may help when it was issued – but it didn’t . My DSS tenants who work with me by and large took a copy up with them when they had a council appt interview . But on every single occasion when they asked for advice on what to do if a sec 21 was served on them were told – just wait and force the LL to obtain a possession order. The inference was clearly that that will delay the process and also cost the LL alot in legal fees and stress so some will just not go ahead and you will be safe . Then we will house you before the bailiffs order most likely so you don’t get a 7am knock on the door and have to move out there and then . Some council staff openly admitted to my tenants it was what they had been instructed to say by their senior management just to buy themselves time to find alternative accommodation . They had zero empathy for the LL and the costs I would incur. One tenant did a bit of undercover recording to prove to me that the council acted purely in their own self interest and not in either the tenants or the LL` interest . The hypocrisy was that the council simultaneously put out their glossy literature advertising LL`s to work with them and invited us to a LL`s forum . I went once to say my piece and they just coughed and spluttered with embarrassment when i rose to challenge them on this issue . Their hypocrisy still grates with me even after 25 years of housing the homeless and often vulnerable

Reply to the comment left by Jag at 25/04/2026 – 08:14
Legal action against a Council would be strengthened by more than one complaint against the same council.

If anyone wants to collate complaints against Councils ( that have some evidence ) and an individual Council is identified on more than one occasion, – I’m willing to look into that matter further.

Anyone else have experience of Councils passing the issue of Section 21 notices (and others) over to their lackeys Shelter when rogue tenant engages?
Many years ago when I was a LL the rogue tenant invoked the Council when I asked her to vacate (£5000 in arrears and non verbal). Council engaged at 1st instance and then immediately triggered Shelter. I refused to enter into any dialect or correspondence with Shelter – they were not on my record. The scummy tenant bailed out on a Sunday -two days after the deadline but before I was to submit an application to the Court on Monday . Papers all ready to submit application.
Shelter rang my private tel number (where did they get the no. from)?? Council were in breach of Data Protection Legislation.
Shelter told me that I had committed a serious breach of the law and that I MUST allow the scummy tenant to return . She had left voluntarily remember. I responded that I was on my way to my property to make it secure by changing the locks and that they were free to attend to witness the change over. They might even use the evidence in any legal action that would assist them and their client. No show and no further communications from them.
I would urge others Not to engage with Shelter unless they are “on the record” .
Carchester

If eviction notice is sent via recorded delivery or registered post what happens if tenants refuse to sign for delivery?

Reply to the comment left by LaLo at 25/04/2026 – 11:27
Then the notice is not served, that is why you should also send by ordinary post, with a certificate of posting. In the present climate I prefer to serve personally with a witness videoing the whole process and a certificate of service (form N215).
Belt, braces, piece of string and a roll of duck tape.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 12:05
Thank you for the factual and 100% accurate comment on the conduct of councils regarding their duties to Prevent or Relieve homelessness!
As a former housing and homelessness officer for many years and for many different local authorities , the Code of Guidance was considered our ‘ bible’: where all statutory decisions and guidance pertaining to Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 ( as amended) for the assessment and assistance available to those presenting as homeless or at risk of homelessness.
The Code of Guidance made these statutory duties very clear.
However what I began to experience was the repeated abject failings of housing options officers and sometimes whole teams who would literally ignore these statutory duties especially where a s21 had been served and simply tell the tenant to remain in the tenancy until a Bailiffs warrant is executed.
Now to be clear, this is absolutely NOT illegal as Tenants have legal rights of occupancy UNTIL this final stage of a LEGAL eviction process is concluded.
The truth is that both landlords and local authorities have abused the s21 process as MANY landlords are aware that most tenants do not know their tenancy and housing rights and therefore tenants believe they have to leave their accommodation on the date stated in the s21 and sometimes are ‘made’ to leave at this time. THIS would constitute an illegal eviction as the s21 Notice is merely the landlord ” notifying the tenant of their intention to regain possession of the property”, commonly known as ” Step 1 in a legal eviction.
Step 2: The landlord has to apply to the court for the court Order Seeking Possession – this is where the tenant has the ability to file their Defence agreeing or disagreeing with the Claimant’s ( Landlords) claim for Possession of the property.
If a Court Order for Possession is granted a date must be stated ( eviction date) and if the tenant has not left by the specified date then Step 3 the Landlord/ Claimant’s applies for a High Court Sheriff/ Bailiffs warrant and the tenant MUST vacate before or on this date*.
The Homeless Reduction Act 2017 made local authorities STATUTORY DUTIES to
1. Advise 2. Prevent or 3. Relieve homelessness MANDATORY.
Simply put it made the ACTIONS that local authorities had to perform crystal clear in law:
1. Everyone who approaches the local authority- Housing Options / Homeless Team- as homeless or at risk of homelessness MUST be given ADVICE.
2. Dependent on eligible immigration status Housing Ops/ Homeless team MUST try to PREVENT the homelessness if possible so they must Contact the landlord to establish WHY notice had been served.
If it is for a reason which the local authority can mitigate ie: rent arrears due to sudden change in income or circumstances and the local authority can help set up a payment plan or pay off the arrears and the landlord is happy for the tenant to remain if the arrears are addressed then this is a good/ successful Prevention case.
Housing Options have 56 Days to Prevent the homelessness.
If however the landlord is insistent on regaining Possession for fair reasons which do not breach any regulatory or statutory requirements ie NOT a Retaliatory Eviction for ignored disrepair issues in the property
( Deregulation Act 2015) and there are no reasonable grounds for mitigation by the 56 day time limit, then Housing Options MUST move to the RELIEF/ RELIEVE Duty. This Duty also lasts for 56 days or when APPROPRIATE and SUITABLE secure alternative accommodation can be sourced.
The unfortunate reality is that we have too many incompetent, poorly trained and overworked housing options officers! The average caseload is between 50- 200 cases ! ( I have carried 200+ cases…)
Worse are the inept and lazy housing options team leaders/ managers who flout the statutory duties and are often arrogant and dismissive towards private sector landlords.
It is THEY who will be instructing the Officers to tell Tenants to remain past the s21 Notice
( legal) but usually with no explanation to the Landlord as to why and how best to work TOGETHER with the landlord to achieve an acceptable outcome for both landlord and tenant.
To conclude, much as I loved working in housing options and developed strong professional relationships with many Landlords some of which became friends to this day, I grew more and more disillusioned with the egotists and maladministration I witnessed from management and their total disregard and disrespect for both private landlords and tenants.
Today I am content to continue to assist both Tenants and Landlords to navigate these statutory duties and failings of local authorities, from outside the confines of local authority BS.
Until Landlords are willing to pursue Judicial Reviews against local authorities for their STATUTORY FAILURES and ABROGATION of the Homeless Reduction Act 2017 and Housing Act 1996 ( part 7) DUTIES, the maltreatment and demonization of both Tenants and Private Landlords will continue by default!

Reply to the comment left by Sheralyne Stamp at 22/04/2026 – 10:07
You should ask the local authority if they have accepted the Prevent or Relief Duty to the tenant and to provide proof to you as the landlord.
Also unless you as landlord agreed in writing to the keeping of these pets, then it IS a breach of their tenancy agreement if this was done without your prior knowledge and consent and the tenancy does not permit any pets.

Reply to the comment left by Ma’at Housing Solutions at 25/04/2026 – 11:40
Call me naive but if you have a contract which can be cancelled by either party (subject to conditions) and one party does cancel (within these conditions), the contract ends at the point legally specified. Any continued use of goods, services or property after that point is illegal and will have to be reinforced through court action.
If you think this is wrong, consider a tenant giving notice to vacate. If done correctly as per the contract there is no situation where the landlord could justifiably not accept the notice and continue billing after the vacating date.
AST’s up to the end of the month have various clauses, some of which may become inconvenient but which have been agreed and signed upon.

Reply to the comment left by Ma’at Housing Solutions at 25/04/2026 – 11:40
Its a good balanced post. And you have summarised accurately if rather depressingly the true state of affairs in local government
A point to pick up.
I don`t see it as the LL`s job to kick start a judicial review. The council should be held to account by the myriad of scrutinising bodies already in place to hold them to account . Yes they are weak too but we need to put robust vocalised legitimate pressure on those bodies to do their job efficiently…. . Having contributed financially to the failed Judicial Review to the Sec 24 Finance Act I see little optimism that a judicial review will be successful.

Unfortunately despite the internet we are still so disconnected and loners as LL`s. I see real change will only come about if either there is a change of the current weak leadership at the NRLA and someone more hardline takes over . Or failing that a new robust proactive Union took up our cause . Or a simpler route may come about naturally in the local elections on 7th May followed by a change of government by the end of the year to the one that pledged they would repeal Sec 24