Ombudsman asks London borough to review how it deals with homelessness applicants who have been issued with section 21 eviction notice

These were the findings of a report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), which said the resident, Miss X, had remained in a property at risk of eviction and homelessness “for longer than necessary”.

Hillingdon has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress and uncertainty this caused.

The council has also agreed that the review of its procedures should bring its approach in line with the Homelessness Code of Guidance and ensure the correct homelessness duty is considered at the time.

The Ombudsman’s investigation followed a complaint from Miss X that Hillingdon did not move her to alternative accommodation to prevent her becoming homeless after her landlord issued her with a section 21 eviction notice in June 2024.

Miss X said her eviction date from the private rented sector accommodation was set for March 2025 and the lack of help from the council caused her distress and uncertainty.

The council closed Miss X’s approach because it said she had a legal right to stay in her home until the landlord issued both a possession order and a bailiff’s warrant. It told her not to leave the property until the landlord issued those notices.

In July 2024 Miss X submitted a new homelessness application, along with a complaint about a lack of assistance.

The council said that once the landlord had completed the process of obtaining a possession order and a bailiff’s warrant, it would look to provide temporary accommodation. It warned that there was a shortage of properties that accepted pets.

The resident’s landlord also contacted Hillingdon explaining they were selling the property Miss X was living in and asked it to find her alternative accommodation, to which the council responded that it advises applicants not to move out of properties until an alternative property is found or the landlord has obtained a possession order.

In October 2024 Miss X said she received a letter explaining her housing case was closed with no explanation, despite her landlord having now gone to court to obtain a possession order.

Despite initial discussions with a housing officer about financial support and referrals, the Ombudsman found no record that these assurances were acted upon.

After Miss X’s landlord obtained a possession order in November 2024, she submitted a third homelessness application, explaining that her eviction was set for the end of December at which point she would be homeless.

After filing a complaint with the LGSCO, she reported that the court had issued a bailiff’s warrant for her eviction at the start of March 2025.

Hillingdon intervened at the last moment, placing Miss X in interim accommodation one day before the eviction took place. It told the Ombudsman that it was seeking to arrange temporary housing for her.

According to the LGSCO, the council’s prevention duty began with the Section 21 eviction notice in June 2024 but there was no evidence it formally accepted any housing duty at the time, which the Ombudsman found to be fault.

The council should have told Miss X that it owed her the prevention duty and then taken reasonable steps to help her either remain in her current accommodation or to secure alternative accommodation alongside helping to prepare a personal housing plan (PHP).

Instead, it closed the case and expected Miss X to wait until she was issued with a possession order and bailiff’s warrant.

Additionally, the Ombudsman found fault in the lack of consideration of whether the council owed Ms X the relief duty after the expiration of the section 21 notice and in the failure to take action once the landlord obtained a possession order in November 2024.

The Ombudsman decided it was not reasonable for Miss X to remain in the property given the landlord had obtained an order for possession and it became clear that the eviction would be going ahead.

The council should have considered at this point whether it was appropriate to offer her interim accommodation and the failure to consider this and record its reasoning was fault.

Had the council accepted the relief duty at the correct time, it would have made a main housing decision by early January 2025 and likely offered Miss X temporary accommodation.

The failure to reach a decision on whether it owed Miss X the main homelessness duty was fault.

Finally, the Ombudsman said Hillingdon appeared to have an approach in not offering interim accommodation or considering what homelessness duty it owes until the point an applicant is issued with a bailiff’s warrant for eviction.

This is not in line with Homelessness Code of Guidance for local authorities and was fault, as well as having caused Miss X distress and uncertainty.

As a result of these faults and the Ombudsman’s findings, Hillingdon was asked to:

apologise to Miss X and pay her £800 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused to her by the lack of support towards her homelessness;

remind officers of the importance of notifying homelessness applicants of the correct homelessness duty and ensuring the council accepts and ends the correct duties at relevant times; and

review its procedures around how it deals with homelessness applicants who have been issued with a Section 21 eviction notice.

“It should ensure applicants are not required to stay in accommodation until a warrant for eviction is issued,” the LGSCO said.

Harry Rodd