If you’ve ever served a valid Section 21 notice and thought, “Right—at least we’ve started the clock”. Only to find your tenant has been told by the council to stay put until the bailiffs turn up, you’re not alone. Not even close.
The NRLA says it continues to receive regular reports of local authorities refusing to assist tenants who’ve received a valid Section 21 notice until a possession order (or even a bailiff appointment) is in place. Often, with the warning that leaving earlier could mean being classed as “intentionally homeless.”
This is one of those situations that creates stress for everyone: the tenant lives in limbo, you can’t plan anything, and costs (arrears, court fees, time) can quietly balloon while no action is taken.
Here’s what the guidance says should happen, why this “wait for bailiff” advice causes problems for everyone involved, and what you can do if it lands on your desk.
What the council should be doing (in plain English)
Under the homelessness framework, a tenant is deemed to be threatened with homelessness if they’ve been served a valid Section 21 notice that will expire within 56 days.
That matters because councils are meant to act early, not at the final bloody moment. The NRLA states that during this period, the local authority should assess the tenant and work with them to develop a personalised housing plan.
In practical terms, that plan might include things like:
- helping the tenant keep up with rent as much as possible,
- advising whether to apply for private or social housing,
- exploring support with debts,
- and checking whether there’s any defence to the possession claim
Crucially, the council should also contact the landlord to see if the tenancy can be sustained. And if it can’t, the council should take reasonable steps to help the tenant secure alternative accommodation before things hit the “court/bailiff” stage. You know, like they’re supposed to.
Why “wait for the bailiff” backfires (for tenants and landlords)
The NRLA’s view is that councils should not adopt a blanket policy of refusing assistance until a possession order or a bailiff arrives. That’s not how it’s meant to work.
Government guidance supports the idea that, in most cases where there’s no defence and the notice is valid, it’s unlikely to be reasonable for a tenant to remain beyond the expiry of a valid Section 21 notice. It also says councils should not treat it as reasonable for applicants to remain right up to enforcement by warrant/writ.
When councils delay support until the bitter end, common knock-on effects include:
- increased rent arrears (because the tenant may stop paying once they believe they “have to wait”),
- extra court costs for the tenant and landlord,
- longer uncertainty and anxiety for the tenant (who’s basically stuck in purgatory),
- and a landlord becoming reluctant to ever accept council-referred tenants again (reducing supply at the worst possible time)
So basically, everyone loses. Brilliant system.
What to do if this happens to you
If a housing officer contacts you and your notice is valid, the NRLA suggests being proactive and clear. Explain there’s no realistic prospect of the tenancy continuing and outline the practical impacts (costs, arrears, deadlines). Don’t just hope they’ll figure it out.
Helpful things to share (calmly, in writing):
- Why you’re ending the tenancy (if you’re comfortable sharing),
- whether the property is no longer affordable for the tenant,
- And what costs are piling up over time
If you and the tenant are on decent terms. You can also encourage them to mention the relevant parts of the homelessness code when speaking to the council. Sometimes tenants get taken more seriously than landlords—sad but true.
When the council still won’t engage: complaints and accountability
If you believe the local authority hasn’t followed its duties, the NRLA notes you can complain to the council first. If that gets you nowhere, escalate to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman—typically within 12 months.
There are examples of upheld complaints. In which landlords received compensation because council failings contributed to extended tenancies and rent loss. So it’s not a pointless exercise—people have actually won these cases.
It shouldn’t have to come to that, but sometimes it does.
