8:39 AM, 24th January 2025, About 3 days ago 14
Text Size
Lambeth Council is facing a legal action after issuing eviction notices to hundreds of tenants living in properties rented on the private market.
A resident of the Central Hill estate in south London has filed a claim for Judicial Review against the council.
They argue that its decision to evict tenants from around 160 homes leased to a council-owned company, Homes for Lambeth Living Ltd, is unlawful.
The controversy stems from Lambeth’s estate regeneration programme which involved creating HfL Living, a private sector landlord, to rent council-owned properties at market rates.
However, the council has now decided to bring these properties ‘back in-house’ with vacant possession and is evicting all current tenants.
Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) solicitor, Alexandra Goldenberg, who represents the claimant, said: “Lambeth’s decision to rent these properties on the private market is unlawful and has created a devastating impact on hundreds of residents across the borough who have been evicted or are facing eviction.
“This is yet another chapter in a troubling history of estate ‘regeneration’ schemes that have disregarded the rights of residents and communities.”
She adds: “It is time for Lambeth to take responsibility and do the right thing, starting with an immediate halt to all evictions.”
The case argues that the council should not have been renting homes in the private rented sector under assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs).
The claimant says that Lambeth Council, not HfL Living Ltd, is their landlord.
PILC says that Lambeth Council claims it wants to use the homes for those with ‘the most urgent housing need’.
However, it points out that the council has failed to consider that this is precisely what HfL tenants will become if the council evicts them.
They contend that the council should not have used ASTs because local authorities are legally prohibited from doing so.
This arrangement, the claimant argues, has resulted in Lambeth Council granting tenancies that are legally invalid, leaving residents vulnerable to Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions.
The law firm also says that Lambeth insists that, as private renters, HfL tenants ‘will simply be able to move elsewhere, yet that assumption appears to be incorrect’.
One HfL tenant said: “None of us were told we were renting from the council, or that Lambeth saw it as a short-term solution.
“On the contrary, we asked and were assured we’d be able to stay here long-term.
“This decision seems hypocritical as it’s going directly against Labour’s promise to ban Section 21 evictions, and Lambeth is a Labour-led council.”
The council has until February 5 to respond to the claim.
A judge will then determine whether the case will proceed to a full hearing.
Lambeth’s eviction of tenants featured in a Commons debate on 14 January:
Dylan Morris
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:58 PM, 24th January 2025, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Tim Rogers at 24/01/2025 - 11:41
Very good points. Presumably a land registry search on one of the properties will show who the legal owner is. I bet it’s the Council. And if so a Section 21 is not applicable here.
Disgrunteld Landlady
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up6:45 AM, 25th January 2025, About 2 days ago
I went down a rabbit hole of a challenge to a Parking Ticket / Council that ended up as a challenge to the notion of Government rules, Tax, and VAT as all being illegal. Would be interested to get 118's comment on this, it's anarchy and very compelling. He won on the Parking Ticket - Council challenge. Its a good read
David Ward V Warrington Borough Council Case No 05257F 30 May 2013.
If you look up Chief Constable Andrew J Cook - SH - FC you will get an even more side splittingly funny challenge he sent - a snippet "It is definitively clear and has been confirmed by the esteemed Chandran Kukathas that a “STATE” (and there is a secretary of State) that a State is a corporate legal entity or company. There can be no denial of this fact. As a State is a company then a company carries a peer to peer relationship with every and any other company as they are all created by the same process and in
that respect then the State Government is equal to but no greater than McDonalds.
It has also been confirmed by the Rt. Hon Lord Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA (See section part 1 of the same Exhibit (C)) at
the Nottingham and Trent University in 2008 that the office of the Judiciary is a sub office of the same State company and it is conclusive from the Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA narrative that anyone in the executive office of the State"
Carchester
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:04 AM, 25th January 2025, About 2 days ago
A shell company - no doubt about it.
Were the tenannts required to sign a fresh contract when "new" (sic) landlords engaged or were they just captured by the power of incorporation.
As a private trading company surely they are required to trade unde rthe PRS and are therefore bound by the same rules as all private landlords.
Social or Private ??????
Carchester
Tim Rogers
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:27 AM, 25th January 2025, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Tim Rogers at 24/01/2025 - 11:41
Maybe not so smart by me, I should have said CGT or Corporation tax, but I think the principal holds.