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 2014 - Comments: 1562
4:04 PM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 25/06/2025 – 14:24
“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.”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67f63f7290615dd92bc90d94/cprc-mins-7-march-2025.pdf
Stage 1 implementation: commencement of the
tenancy reforms in the private rented sector (PRS). It was proposed that no CPR changes are required for this stage, because the existing rules need to be retained for social landlords. This will mean that they can continue to issue assured shorthold tenancies and evict tenants via Section 21, which will require the accelerated possession process.
(It may or may not be implemented at a later stage for social landlords.)
Member Since November 2020 - Comments: 134
8:15 PM, 25th June 2025, About 10 months ago
I think it’s about time that renters stood up against bad landlords and got the government to bring about legal changes to protect them from such horrible people. This exploitation of tenants has to stop. Such an act needs a name. How about calling it the Renters’ Reform Act?
Member Since February 2023 - Comments: 85
9:50 AM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
This government is intent on creating an unfair and toxic rental market. The streets will be filled with more homeless people whereas refugees will be housed and getting everything for free but being funded by us. It’s a shame that we are governed by those who are just steam rolling ahead with these discriminatory laws without any concern or what impact they will have. We are being run by inept spoilt children who will not listen to professionals or the like because they don’t care about the impact it’s causing. They are truly showing that they don’t care about their people and because of that, I hope no landlord in the PRS accepts a deal from the government to house refugees.
Member Since November 2024 - Comments: 81
10:06 AM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 25/06/2025 – 11:47My response was to a comment made where it was implied that the tenants were renting as council tenants just highlighting that they are not they are renting via a Council PRS scheme and ofcourse if renting via PRS then the applicable rules would apply. It is meant to highlight the duplicitous nature of councils in this regard.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
12:24 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Sheridan Vickers at 26/06/2025 – 09:50
I have never housed asylum seekers because neither my mortgage provider nor my insurance company used to permit it: I believe the Serco contract has changed that now though such that it’s no longer very risky. Personally I wouldn’t blame any landlord for doing it because the government has in fact made housing asylum seekers way less risky than housing social housing tenants.
But in terms of what the article above says I still don’t understand the bit that says the council were “…taking back former council homes that were lost through Right to Buy.”
I.e., I don’t understand what powers they were using to ‘take back homes that were lost through Right to Buy’, like Angela Rayner’s former council home, for example.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
12:54 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 26/06/2025 – 12:24
Houses sold under the Right To Buy scheme cannot be taken back. Ever. End of. It’s just the usual BS spin to appeal to the uneducated masses to get their vote. It’s disgraceful behaviour and should be outlawed.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
12:54 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 25/06/2025 – 16:04
Bloody hell. 2TK system gets embedded.
So as it stands at the mo, for three months after the Bill is passed, then no change – PRS LL’s can issue S21’s etc.
Stage 2 means remainder of Bill provisions to be commenced (S21 still available to social LL’s)
Stage 3 commencement of the social rented sector reforms.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
1:04 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 26/06/2025 – 12:54
Although presumably, rather than taking a private tenant or social housing tenant, if you enter into the Serco contract the TENANT is Serco (so you don’t need to evict them) and Serco guarantees your rental income.
But it’s not clear to me yet whether Serco will take a band E, F or D property (although their online bumf says they’ll consider ANY property) and it’s also not clear to me whether the TENANT (Serco) can apply to get any grants to move properties from band D to C. Although I suspect that the RESIDENTS in the property would qualify.
Member Since June 2025 - Comments: 1
1:16 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Evicting current tenants…mmm….I wonder who these “vulnerable” “homeless” people are whom they’re currently paying hotels for them to stay in, I personally only know of one main group of “homeless” populace who this government is payment exhortinate hotel funds for…..I’m not going to say it..don’t want to get myself banned now do I ….but I’ll give you 1 guess……may be an assumption but one I’ve(and many others) been proven to be spot on about alot recently
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1630 - Articles: 3
3:21 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 26/06/2025 – 12:24
They were transferred to a company owned by Lambeth, not sold. It demonstrates the lack of credibility inside Lambeth when the leader of the council makes a nonsensical and inaccurate public statement.