Council Should Have Explained Court Fees To Tenant

Archive notice: This is a 2015 news/comment piece kept for historical reference to Local Government Ombudsman case 14 013 401 (Herefordshire Council, 30 March 2015). Its procedural framing — a two-month section 21 notice and the council telling the tenant to stay until a possession order — is pre-reform: section 21 no-fault eviction has been abolished in England by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and the section 21-equivalent no-fault notice for Welsh occupation contracts has been replaced by the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 from 1 December 2022. The underlying Ombudsman point remains relevant in principle: where a council advises a tenant to stay until a possession order, it should also explain the risk of liability for the landlord’s court costs in current possession proceedings, now section 8 in England and section 8 / no-fault grounds-led routes in Wales as applicable. For live cases, use current possession guidance for the relevant jurisdiction.

A test complaint we’ve wanted to try for quite some time now has been decided (the complaint was not by one of our members or us). 

After a landlord has served a two-month section 21 notice, the tenant will commonly go to the local authority, saying they are threatened with homelessness and seeking assistance. 

The local authority will, in most cases, inform the tenant to remain in occupation until the landlord has obtained a possession order. It has been our long-held view that, although local authorities offering this advice are technically correct, they fail to provide all the relevant information, namely that such an action will result in the tenant being liable for the court costs. 

A complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman has been made on precisely this point.

 In the complaint against Herefordshire Council (14 013 401) on 30 March 2015, the Ombudsman accepted that the council were entitled to tell the complainant they should remain in possession, but that the advice should also have explained that court costs would be incurred by the complainant for the possession order.

There was no fault in the Council advising Mr X to stay in his flat until his landlord got a possession order. But the Council failed to clearly explain to him he might have to pay his landlord’s costs. This was fault. I uphold his complaint about that. But there was no significant injustice to Mr X, through this.

In this case, the complainant couldn’t show any specific financial loss due to remaining in occupation, which would need to be shown on an individual basis. 

However, if, in future cases, it is possible to show a loss, the Ombudsman may ask the local authority to pay compensation equivalent to that loss (up to the amount of the court fees) to the complainant.