Councils crackdown on private landlords while failing tenants
1 year ago | 2 comments
Tenants lose fight as council can evict families to house homeless
10:14 AM, 25th June 2025, 10 months ago
64
Tenants have lost a legal challenge against a Labour-run council after they were served eviction notices to make way for homeless families.
Earlier this year, Lambeth Council decided to reclaim over 160 homes on council estates. These properties, previously rented out through the private rented sector by Homes for Lambeth, a private company wholly owned by the council, were reclassified as temporary accommodation.
As a result of the council’s actions, more than 160 families have been served Section 21 eviction notices, with residents warning this could leave them homeless despite the council’s duty to prevent homelessness.
We need to use these properties
One of the tenants applied for a Judicial Review following the council’s decision to evict private renters. However, this was refused in March, and last week a judge dismissed their appeal.
Mr Justice Linden ruled that the council had acted lawfully throughout.
Councillor Danny Adilypour, Lambeth council’s deputy leader (Housing, Investment and New Homes), welcomed the decision.
He said: “Lambeth is on the front line of a national housing crisis, and we are doing everything we can to provide the most disadvantaged and vulnerable families in Lambeth with a safe, decent home.
“It is right that we are taking back former council homes that were lost through Right to Buy. We need to use these properties to provide safe, secure homes for our most vulnerable residents in urgent need of housing, rather than leaving them to be rented on the private market to those who have the means and resources to pay market rent.”
He adds: “The number of homeless households supported by the council has increased by 50% in the last two years, and Lambeth is now providing temporary accommodation for over 4,700 homeless households every night.
“The cost of housing homeless families in overnight accommodation has risen to more than £100million a year. This is why we have to use all of the properties available to us to support these homeless households and bring these costs down.”
Making people homeless to house the homeless
The Homes for Lambeth Tenants (HFL) group warns tenants threatened with homelessness due to the decision could be forced to rely on Lambeth Council for support.
Former local Green Party councillor Peter Elliot told the Big Issue: “The fact that Lambeth Council is evicting its people from its own homes is just mind-blowing for me.
“Many people have left so what’s left for Lambeth Council is really people who can’t go anywhere. They genuinely are making people homeless to house the homeless.”
Homes for Lambeth also points out that it is the council’s legal duty to prevent homelessness.
In a statement on Instagram, HFL tenants said: “Most of HFL tenants, who are currently being served eviction notices by a ‘private company’ set up and fully owned by Lambeth Council, will have a duty to be housed by the very same council.
“The technical ruling on whether the council should have rented homes ‘privately’ in the first place does not mean that the council’s decisions are fair or ethical. Merely because something is deemed to be legal does not automatically make it just.”
The group adds that they will continue to fight for justice after the ruling.
The group says on their social media page: “The judge did not find in our favour. Still, we remain committed to fighting for each of our tenants and ensuring that we are not made homeless.
“We recognise that we should have never been put in this situation, especially by a local authority whose legal duty it is to prevent homelessness, yet here we are. And we are determined to persevere.”
Tags:
Eviction, homeless families, Homes for Lambeth Tenants, housing crisis, judicial review, lambeth council, right to buy, Section 21 eviction notices, temporary accommodation, tenants
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
Previous Article
Council hits landlords with £1.5m in finesRelated Articles
‘Rogue councils’ slammed for their ‘serious failings’ in housing management
1 year ago | 1 comments
Local authorities are using selective licensing as a ‘cash cow’ – Special Report
3 years ago | 8 comments
Member Since June 2015 - Comments: 330
10:29 AM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
The really insane thing is the ludicrously low rent charged for Social Housing. These properties are clearly worth far more than the heavily subsidized rents Local Authorities are allowed to charge. This is clearly demonstrated by the case in question. Lambeth set up a company to rent properties in the private sector at far higher rent than the government allows them to charge for their own Social Housing. They are now evicting people who potentially have lower incomes than the people on their homeless list. The problem with Social Housing is the rent is unfeasibly low regardless of the tenants income. Someone earning £70K can enjoy half price rent courtesy of other tax payers if they scoop a Social House.
LHA is significantly higher than Social rents in most of the country so there’s not even the excuse that low paid or unemployed people can’t afford LHA level rent.
In my area a 2 bed Council flat is around £445 per month. LHA is £797. Market rent is £850 to £1100.
£445 doesn’t even cover the management and maintenance costs. It certainly doesn’t touch the cost of the new kitchens and solar panels the Council loves to install.
This is one area where we desperately need some levelling up. If Councils were allowed to charge a viable rent they could afford to provide more Social Housing and they wouldn’t need to make settled families homeless.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 508
10:57 AM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Julian Lloyd at 25/06/2025 – 10:26
Surely not all Councils tenants are unemployed? They are not all the Scargills who are taking unfair advantage?
Are Lambeth simply moving pieces over the council draughts board?
For years Lambeth and Reality have refused to shake hands?
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1630 - Articles: 3
11:05 AM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by A Reader at 25/06/2025 – 09:38It is Lambeth!
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1630 - Articles: 3
11:08 AM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Blodwyn at 25/06/2025 – 10:57Lambeth used to have an amazing Housing Director, but she left when she’d had enough of the Council’s insanity.
As we see from other PRS landlords’ experience, the council should be advising these tenants to sit tight until they are about to be evicted. I wonder if the court will drag its feet in granting possession orders!
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
11:47 AM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by A Reader at 25/06/2025 – 10:28
I thought that was the reason for the judicial review…the tenants arguing they signed up as private tenants with Lambeth’s HfL Living, who is a private sector landlord, to rent council-owned properties at market rates.
If that is the case a S21 is valid for the type of contract they have.
Interesting to note that they argue “The technical ruling on whether the council should have rented homes ‘privately’ in the first place does not mean that the council’s decisions are fair or ethical. Merely because something is deemed to be legal does not automatically make it just.”
No wonder they lost the JR. Its not about fairness/or being just – they can’t provide evidence to show the S21 is invalid it seems.
Member Since October 2019 - Comments: 391
1:48 PM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Councils seem to be immune from S21 – I wonder why !
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 508
1:52 PM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Unintelligible law making, never write in plain English. Official red tape. Delay. Incompetence.
That’s just to start with?
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
2:24 PM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by LaLo at 25/06/2025 – 13:48they are also getting in quick before the RRB kicks in…
I look forward to hearing about how these ‘PRS companies’ set up by Councils (to elicit market rate rent for their own council properties as opposed to capped social rents) fare when the RRB hits….and they want to evict
Maybe like Lambeth the tide is now turning and they are going back to using their own properties for the category of temp accommodation only. This way they can claim back a bit more from the central budget so they don’t meet the total 100% cost themselves.
Reverting to council homes for direct social rent means capped income for which wont even cover ongoing maintenance and at some point (until it is outrightly banned) tenants can still have the option to buy …
Member Since October 2024 - Comments: 7
2:41 PM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
This must be why s21 evictions are to be banned. To stop rogue landlords, such as Lambeth council, from evicting well behaved tenants for no reason. Meanwhile those of us that have used s21 to evict undesirable tenants are penalised.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
3:47 PM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Out of curiosity, how did the council manage to achieve the claim that they were “…taking back former council homes that were lost through Right to Buy.”
What powers did they use to take back homes that were lost through Right to Buy?