Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Mr X’s tenant’s homelessness case after he issued a Section 21 notice. We have seen no evidence the Council advised the tenant to remain in the property.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a landlord. He complained the Council incorrectly advised a tenant to remain in Mr X’s property instead of offering interim accommodation under its homelessness duty. As a result he said he had a delayed sale of his property and had to reduce the asking price.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Section 21

6. A Section 21 notice was a "no-fault" eviction document used by private landlords in England to end an assured shorthold tenancy without giving a reason. Section 21 notices were officially abolished on 1 May 2026 under the Renters' Rights Act, and landlords must now use the fault-based Section 8 process.

The former Section 21 process

• Serving Notice: Landlords gave tenants at least two months' notice to leave.
• Pre-requisites: The notice was only valid if the landlord protected the deposit, gave safety certificates, and avoided banned fees.
• Court Application: If the tenant did not move out, the landlord applied to the court for a possession order.
• Bailiff Eviction: Physical removal required court bailiffs if the tenant remained.
1. Tenants had a right to remain in privately rented accommodation until a court issued a warrant to enforce possession and bailiffs carry out that warrant. It is not fault for a council to advise applicants of this right.
2. Councils must consider the tests at 6.29-6.38 of chapter 6 of the Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities (‘the Code’) when considering when prevention ends and relief starts when a homeless applicant is a private tenant with a notice to quit.
3. We may find fault if a council cannot demonstrate it had regard to this part of the Code. The Code sets out an increasing unlikelihood that accommodation will be reasonable to continue to occupy as the possession process proceeds. Councils should properly record any decision that it nonetheless considers it reasonable for an applicant to remain. Especially if the applicant has children or may otherwise be in priority need and so owed interim accommodation if homeless.

What happened

10. Mr X is a landlord. In December 2024, he served a Section 21 notice on a tenant (Y) as he wanted to sell the property.
11. Y submitted a homelessness application to the Council in January 2025.
12. Y did not move out by the end of the notice period (February 2025), so Mr X applied to the courts for an eviction order. The Court issued an order with a June deadline for Y to leave the property.
13. In April 2025, the Council accepted the relief duty and notified Y. The Council said it assessed whether it was reasonable for Y to remain in the property based on its size, location and affordability. It said in this case, it was reasonable for the tenant to remain. Y wrote to their MP to raise concerns about how the Council handled their homelessness application. Y said that the Council told them to remain in the property.
14. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said there was no evidence that officers instructed Y to remain in the property. It said that applicants are advised of their options, including remaining, leaving voluntarily, or seeking alternative accommodation. It said the Council does not direct applicants to remain, nor does it require landlords to apply for a warrant.

My findings

15. In response to Mr X’s complaint and our enquiries, the Council said that it did not advise Y to remain in the property after the Section 21 was issued. Y’s letter said it did.
16. I have seen evidence that the Council carried out an assessment of Y’s financial situation to support its decision that the property was affordable. This indicates that the Council considered the relevant factors when reaching its decision and therefore met the requirements of the Code. We cannot question the Council’s decision if it was made correctly.
17. On balance, I believe the Council advised Y of their rights after Mr X issued the Section 21 notice. This included the option to remain in the property. I have seen no evidence the Council told Y to remain so that it did not need to provide interim accommodation.

Back to top

Decision

18. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman