By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Sadiq Khan and Generation Rent advising police on handling evictions

The Metropolitan Police has been advised by tenant activists and the London Mayor on developing rule changes for evictions.

The changes include a presumption against eviction and reflect "the needs of tenants" according to a statement from the force.

London Labour Mayor Khan says: "Until now, there have been few protections in place to safeguard London's renters from illegal evictions.


“These new, robust guidelines will ensure that London renters not only have a much clearer sense of their rights, but that frontline police officers are far better equipped to respond to incidences of tenants being harassed, threatened or illegally forced out of their homes by their landlords."

The guidance states that if the eviction is out of hours, and a court-appointed bailiff is not present, then the eviction is considered to be illegal.

A Met spokesperson says: “Starting at the point that the effort of a landlord or representative to evict an individual/individuals is illegal will prompt officers to ensure that there is a bailiff in place who is in possession of the relevant paperwork, and that due process - as per the legislation - has been followed."

The Met says it sought advice from activists in Generation Rent and a spokesperson for the pro-renter group says: “Renters need the full protection of the law when threatened with an illegal eviction.

"Police officers must not dismiss them as civil matters or, worse still, assist any landlord in these criminal acts."

  • icon

    It appears to me that the laws already in place is an xxx unfair
    Renters signed a lease agreement stating that the lease will finish on a certain date or by a set amount of time which the tenant or property owner must give notice to terminate. In the past I had had the correct paperwork to which the tenant was ordered by the court to pay the significant arrears and vacate on a certain date. The tenant did vacate but not on the date ordered by the court several days later. NEVER paid the arrears. This to my mind is a breach of court instruction which I believe the courts should follow up and enforce, not the owner.
    It looks to me like if one works hard give up a lot of time to ensure their financial security this will not be protected by law. But if one rents for what ever reason the law will support them in every way possible even at the expense of the property owner or indeed the Tax payer.

    Do we have a new title for this type of government /society because it is not fair nor is it democracy.

  • icon
    • G W
    • 29 August 2023 08:32 AM

    And so it begins….

  • icon

    I don't disagree that illegally changing locks or cutting off utilities should be punished, but the police need extra funding if they are going to have to deal with this as well.

    And as mentioned above, the Court, and the police, need to be fair and take action on those who do not leave when instructed, or do not pay. It shouldn't all be one way!

  • icon

    The law of contract supercedes anything these leftist activists and their woke agents (the Met police) believe they have to legally stop or delay termination of the agreement.

    It's simply one party to a contract exercising their option, written into the contract , subject to the terms and conditions of the contract. Agreed and signed by both parties when they both
    willingly entered the agreement.

    The landlord is simply exercising his contractual right & option, which is fully within the terms and conditions of all tenancy agreements.

    Providing the landlord's exercise of this option is not breaching any of the related terms and conditions, also stated in the agreement,then the tenant has absolutely no recourse to the courts or to challenge the landlords termination right.

    Such cases need to be filtered by lawyers to stop perfectly legal tenancy terminations going anywhere near a court. If the tenant and his solicitor still want to pursue a challenge to the court then they must be responsible for all of the costs whether they win or lose, together with rent due for the period that the tenant has remained in the property beyond the date of termination.

    We should also stop calling contractual terminations an "Eviction"

    Eviction is a deliberately evocative & divisive term that is designed to conjure up the Dickensian image of a mean, greedy, unscrupulous landlord, physically throwing out the poor, innocent tenant and their bairns onto the snow filled street at Christmas.

    Evictions refer to Landlords ending a contract because the tenant has breached the contract by either not paying rent, damaging the property, using the property for forbidden or illegal purposes etc.
    Eviction is not the perfectly legal exercise of a section 21 because the Landlord requires repossession for his own personal reasons.

    A sec 21 is not like the Spanish Inquisition, because unlike the Spanish Inquisition, every tenant should expect the possibility of a termination because that's the nature of the animal.


    I only refer to it as 'eviction' when I actually have to go to Court, or turn up with a bailiff. Otherwise I try to use similar to what you have said "served notice to bring the tenancy/contract to an end"

  • icon

    Khan and his thugees in Gen Rent LOVE the word eviction because of the images it evokes. A nasty landlord twirling his moustache as a weeping mother and her crying children are dragged from the comfort of their warm home out into the wind and rain, to sit wailing on the pavement. That is the image they want you to see, when in reality it is very different.

    The worrying aspect is the presumption of illegality by the police. That is not their right. Their role is to apply the law WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR, not to act as Citizen Khan’s bullies.


    I would assume a simple "Do you have a possession warrant issued by the Court to allow you to remove these people from the premises and change the locks? Do you have legal paperwork from a Court confirming your right to shut off utilities to the property?" would be enough, obviously followed by the production of said documents. Yes = Carry on sir/Ma'am No = Put your hands behind your back Sir/Ma'am


    Country Lass, remember this is London Plod, the ones that arrest people for interfering with JSO protesters.

  • icon

    Fedup Landlord, whilst on the whole I think that the environmental protestors are... lacking in common sense, if they were peacefully protesting and not stopping others from getting on with their daily lives then they should be allowed to do so. The police were following the law, I assume (not knowing exactly what incident you are talking about means I could be wrong)

    I have no sympathy for the ones who glued themselves to roads etc, or chained themselves to things to stop others from going about their business. Yank 'em out of the way and get things moving again, if they leave some skin behind, tough! We had some near us a few years ago, that they barricaded roads etc. No sympathy or tolerance for them. The ones who hung out near busy traffic lights, hit the crossing button and stood there for the entirety of the red light with their banners, and then moved to the pavement to start it all again? Meh, annoying, and counter-productive to keep people sitting their for ages with their engines running, but not completely offensive...

  • jeremy clarke

    Is this the same police force that is completely impotent when it comes to dealing with real criminals wielding knives, robbing watches and storming through shops? if so, then landlords have nothing to worry about!


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up