3 years ago | 36 comments
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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
3 years ago | 36 comments
1 week ago | 13 comments
3 years ago | 11 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since April 2023 - Comments: 91
1:52 PM, 25th April 2026, About 5 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 25/04/2026 – 12:18
I agree that it should not be down to Landlords to compel local authorities to comply with their statutory duties. But as the relevant local government scrutiny and oversight bodies are seemingly reluctant to do their respective jobs…
The threat of a JR is still feared by housing options teams.
Perhaps NRLA should be looking more closely at these statutory failings by local authorities to comply with their duties…
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 92
4:32 PM, 25th April 2026, About 2 hours ago
This is how it will unfold.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 already gives qualifying leaseholders a right of first refusal to buy the freehold, with serious consequences for freeholders who fail to comply, including criminal conviction and an unlimited fine.
The Renters’ Rights Act 2026 will depress capital values for properties let under Housing Act 1988 tenancies. The next step will be to graft a similar right of first refusal onto assured tenancies, giving tenants the opportunity to buy before a landlord can sell elsewhere. Government will not describe that as forcing a sale at a depressed value. It will say the price merely reflects the property’s current regulatory burden.
If the tenant cannot, or does not wish to, buy, the right will then be extended to councils, allowing them to acquire those properties at the newly depressed values and grant the tenant a statutory lease.
The model is self-financing. Lenders will readily fund councils where the borrowing is backed by council and government guarantees.
It also solves another political problem. Councils must meet their statutory housing obligations, and housing policy already favours spreading social housing tenants through private estates rather than creating obvious ghettos. This will allow councils to meet those duties while quietly creating the council estates of the future inside existing private developments.
A masterclass in socialist thinking — and possibly the last chance to serve section 21 notices.