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 May 2018 - Comments: 1999
4:18 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 26/06/2025 – 15:21
I don’t really understand what’s going on here, although if Lambeth transferred the properties to a separate limited company and rented them to Serco, they’d probably make a lot of investment income from that without the hassle of having to manage the tenants. What they’ve said may be BS but what they are doing might be a sound investment.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1630 - Articles: 3
4:30 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 26/06/2025 – 16:18
Lambeth isn’t saying who these homeless people are, but ‘do the math’ as the yanks would say.
If they are already getting market rents from private sector tenants, and presumably there’s nothing stopping them from increasing rents on an annual basis, and they would be getting nothing from homeless people, it must mean ‘someone’ is able to pay a lot more to house these homeless people.
Lambeth aren’t known for their financial acuity, so they’ll probably find this is much like Rachel from Complaints’ private school VAT fiasco, where it will end up costing them more.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
4:42 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 26/06/2025 – 16:30
If Lambeth isn’t known for its financial acuity and that ‘someone’ who is able to pay more to house homeless people is Serco then I can’t see a problem with that if Serco is also able to take money to take home-grown homeless rather than just asylum seekers. I.e. if Serco does a better job of housing homeless people than the council then let them do it. But if it transpires that home grown homeless people are losing out to asylum seekers then that’s going to fuel a lot of tension.
I don’t know what’s going on here.
Member Since June 2025 - Comments: 1
4:56 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
There was a news article (on another website) recently regarding the government currently planning rule changes to stop cases exactly like this, such that any section 21 “no fault” evictions would blacklist the property from being allowed to be rented for a period of 1-2 years.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
5:08 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Adam Kelsall at 26/06/2025 – 17:00
If the landlord actually NEEDED to move back into his home and couldn’t for three years, then I pity the landlord.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
8:48 AM, 27th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 26/06/2025 – 16:30
the Home Office via Serco and the like…
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
9:01 AM, 27th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 26/06/2025 – 16:30
..OR because the Council can then let the properties ‘via 10 years plus one day’ lease arrangement with Homes for Lambeth, it means that the majority of the housing costs can be claimed from their Housing Revenue Account (and ultimately back from central government). NB government just pledged a massive wadge of money to go boost the HRA.
In turn that means that it costs the Councils very little (all down to Homes for Lambeth – even if this haemorrhage’s cash so what it just gets written off) , they are not the landlord and they can reduce their own temp housing budget, by shifting families into them that are currently wracking up mega bucks in hotels etc.
Smoke an mirrors – overall ‘reduction in homelessness’? On paper yes, as they are moving those from temp into perm…but shifting those out of perm into what exactly? Many of these will be made homeless as a result and so back on the temp list…..
Member Since June 2025 - Comments: 2
10:56 AM, 27th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Let me understand this, they are going to evict 160 families just to replace them with a 160 homeless families. That makes perfect sense, this is, why I don’t vote. Whoever came up with this dumb af idea needs to be fired. They will have to rehouse the existing families no matter what. As they have a legal and a duty to prevent homelessness. In the end they will still have 160 homeless families to fund houses for.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
11:08 AM, 27th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Stuart Fulton at 27/06/2025 – 10:56
Makes good business sense, the Council will get a greater return renting to Serco and will save on staff costs as this will be a hands off arrangement.
Member Since June 2025 - Comments: 2
11:35 AM, 27th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 27/06/2025 – 11:08
That doesn’t make any business sense. As they will still be out money rehomeing the current tenants. They will be out more money in the end.