When does due process become endless process?

Over the years, I have spent a lot of time defending landlords in possession cases, but I have also consistently acknowledged the need for tenants' rights. Most landlords simply want good tenants who pay their rent and look after the property, while most tenants just want a safe and secure home. The challenge comes when things go wrong. 

In those situations, landlords are repeatedly told to follow the correct legal process. Serve the right notice, follow the prescribed route, go through the courts where necessary, obtain a possession order and then wait for enforcement. On paper, it sounds fairly straightforward, and in many cases, is.  

However, what happens when you do everything by the book and still cannot regain possession of your property years later? These are not common occurrences, but when they do happen, they really do highlight the challenges or flaws in the system.  

Recently, I was contacted by a landlord whose case perfectly illustrates the question many landlords are now asking. The tenant had built up significant rent arrears over several years and, after a lengthy legal process, the landlord finally secured a possession order in August 2024. At the time of writing this, the tenant remains in occupation.  The rent arrears, interest and legal costs have now reached almost £94,000.  

The case has involved multiple hearings, repeated applications, three separate bailiff appointments and numerous delays. On one occasion, a last-minute application resulted in enforcement being halted. On another, a ‘Breathing Space’ application led to further delays. Most recently, a scheduled eviction failed to take place despite agents, locksmiths and building management waiting at the property for several hours while attempting to establish what was happening. 

To be clear, tenants must have the right to challenge possession proceedings. Mistakes can happen, circumstances can change and safeguards are an important part of any fair legal system. 

I should stress that this is an extremely rare case and certainly not representative of the vast majority of possession claims. However,  in situations like this, where landlords have done everything they are supposed to do, obtained a lawful possession order and then find themselves trapped in an enforcement process that drags on for months or even years, the question is how many opportunities should someone have to challenge the same outcome before the system accepts that a lawful judgment must be enforced? 

Every individual safeguard may be justified in isolation. The problem arises when multiple applications, reviews, appeals and procedural interventions combine to create a process that can be delayed again and again. In some cases, it can feel as though obtaining the possession order was the easy part. 

This matters because confidence in the court system has never been more important. Since the introduction of the Renters' Rights Act and the abolition of Section 21, landlords must now rely almost entirely on the courts when seeking possession of a property where there are legitimate grounds to do so. 

Ministers argued that the removal of Section 21 would be accompanied by improvements to the court process, giving landlords confidence that legitimate possession claims could still be resolved efficiently. It was a promise intended to reassure the sector that stronger tenant protections would be balanced by a system capable of delivering timely and effective outcomes.  Unfortunately, many landlords remain unconvinced, and given some of the cases I see, it is not difficult to understand why. 

I regularly speak to landlords who are less concerned about the legal grounds for possession than they are about what happens after a judge has made a decision. They worry about court delays, bailiff waiting times, last-minute applications and the uncertainty surrounding enforcement. 

The reality is that a possession order sitting in a court file does not resolve the problem. It does not recover rent arrears. It does not allow a landlord to sell a property. It does not enable repairs to be carried out and it does not return control of an asset that may be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. A legal remedy only works if it can ultimately be enforced. 

Nearly two months into the new regime, the spotlight is firmly on whether those assurances will translate into reality. Landlords, and the industry that supports them, are not asking for special treatment, they are asking for a system that works. The success of the Renters' Rights Act will depend not only on the rights it grants tenants, but also on whether landlords can have confidence that court orders will be issued, enforced and respected within a reasonable timeframe. 

As policymakers continue to reform the private rented sector, they must remember that justice requires balance. Tenants should be protected from unfair eviction, but landlords must also have confidence that when a court reaches a lawful decision, that decision can be implemented without years of further delay. 

The question is not whether tenants should have rights, of course they should, but so should landlords. The question is whether a system can remain credible when lawful possession orders are repeatedly delayed long after a judgment has been made. 

At some point, due process risks becoming endless process, and that serves neither landlords nor tenants who depend on a private rented sector that functions fairly and efficiently.