Eviction of a tenant not yet in residence?

My advice would be to contact tenant eviction specialists asap - especially as you are dealing with the council - Landlord Group and another Landlord Action are two of the better known ones.

There will no black mark against her name.

Lesson for everyone. NEVER work ‘with’ the Council. They are landlord-hating Lefties that wouldn’t be capable of doing a proper job.

I’d contact an eviction specialist too.

As she is not living at the property as her principle residence, any contract still in effect is not an Assured Tenancy (per S1(1) of Housing Act 1988) - that ended as soon as she started living somewhere else. You should have taken legal advice before serving notice ending the contract for that to be in the correct form.
You also need to check the terms you signed with the insurance company at the stage alternative accommodation was arranged; they may be able to charge you for any over-stay or eviction costs. If you have been in receipt of the rent, then you need to advise her that the arrangement through the insurance company is ending and that you are terminating the original contract. She will have signed something too with the insurance company. You will need to have the contract terms reviewed to see what still applies to avoid putting yourself in breach of contract (Law of contract still applies even if Housing Act 1988 does not). She has been living for 4 years in her current home paying rent and she has the right to stay there until there a court order, but as already indicated, the insurance company may be able to sue you for out of pocket expenses. The council is wrong to say that you have to let her move back in. It will be worth finding out who the housing provider is that ultimately receives rent paid by the insurance company and how much that is. Taking the insurance company out of the equation without her moving might be your best bet.

The Council will each their hands of her if she doesnt follow their advice by decaring her intentionally homeless.

The law and the courts set the eviction timetable, not the Council. Even so, it will take about a year to evict her in most areas due to court backlogs.

I would echo the suggestion to use a specialist eviction company, whatever it costs as the courts can throw out your possession claim at the last moment for a simple error.

Reply to the comment left by Simon F at 09/05/2025 - 10:24
I would have thought that the tenancy with the OP is still active and the current temporary residence falls within it.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 09/05/2025 - 10:37
The tenancy contract is still in effect under contract law, but it ceased to be an 'Assured' tenancy (of the OPs property) when it ceased to be the renters principle home. The council's advice is based on it being a Housing Act 1988 'Assured' tenancy which it was originally but ceased to be 4 years ago. If the renter moves back in and the OP accepts rent covering a period of occupation then it will become an 'Assured' tenancy again. Whether or not the renter has an Assured tenancy of her current accommodation may depend on factors that the OP likely does not have visibility of.

I'd be tenpted to agree with DPT. The tenancy agreement still covers her 'main home'. ie the temporary one provided by the Landlords insurers whilst the Let property was unoccupiable.

I'd suggest that she has a right to move back in once repaired, and that you need to issue correct notice & go through the correct process to terminate the rental contract and evict her from either the temporary property, or the original property depending on where she is living at the time.

That said, I'm speculating, so consult an expert.

Reply to the comment left by Boris at 09/05/2025 - 12:09
The wording of HA1988 S1(1)(b) is "the tenant or, as the case may be, at least one of the joint tenants occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home; and.." So, on this point strictly in law, it is not the fact that the tenant may have no other main home that is the critical point. The wording of the statute is clear, the tenant must be in occupation of the house for the tenancy of that house to be an Assured tenancy.
Professional legal advice is needed to avoid or minimise liabilities associated with the provision of the alternative accommodation, but ending the tenancy contract for the OP's house will be simple and the property can be sold with vacant possession, and the council is wrong to say the OP must allow the renter to move back.

Reply to the comment left by Simon F at 09/05/2025 - 13:19
You may be right, and sound very knowledgeable. However, I cant help thinking there must be a precident for this scenario.

Tenants will have to move out of their house regularly due to insurable events leaving a property uninhabitable. In my AST in this scenario, one of the options is for me to re-house the tenant and continue to receive rent. Surely if I do this, as in this example, the AST continues despite them being housed temporarily elsewhere.

In your explanation my AST would immediately terminate regardless once they temporarily move out, and hence our continued relationship is not governed by the same agreement. This would leave things very uncertain for many, so I feel sure this can't be right.

Hopefully, the OP will update this post once they have sought the advice of an eviction specialist.

Reply to the comment left by Boris at 09/05/2025 - 13:43
I am not saying the contract is automatically terminated, as contract law (enforceable by the parties through civil courts) will still apply and rent has been accepted until now demonstrating the OP accepts that fact. I am saying it ceases to be an Assured tenancy governed by the provisions of Housing Act 1988 requiring a court order to evict. No court order to evict right now could have any possible effect when the property is currently vacant; the OP would be wasting court time making such an application. The OP has been accepting rent, so there remains a vanilla tenancy of sorts in effect. So, OP still does need to terminate the contract. Notifying the tenant that the contract is/will be terminated and refusing to accept any further rent may suffice whilst the property remains vacant.
In your scenario if/when the tenant moves back in after a short temporary spell of absence and rent has been accepted for a new period of occupation then the tenancy would become an Assured one again. Understanding the distinction between what parts of a tenancy agreement are governed by contract law and which by Housing Act 1988 under specific circumstances is key here.