In the recent case of Farrah v Sheffield City Council, the Upper Tribunal (a higher-level property tribunal that hears appeals) looked at a banning order imposed on a 104-year-old landlord who had breached the Protection from Eviction Act 1997. While the facts were unusual, the decision raises wider issues for landlords, councils and property professionals – especially now that the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has changed the rules around ending tenancies.
What happened in Farrah v Sheffield City Council?
Sheffield City Council applied for a banning order against the landlord, Mr Farrah. The First-tier Tribunal (the tribunal that first heard the case) decided that the order should not take effect until his existing tenancies had been ended at the earliest opportunity.
This created a significant practical problem.
The banning order could only start once the landlord had ended those tenancies. If he chose not to, the order would never come into force. There was also nothing to stop him granting new tenancies in the meantime.
The Upper Tribunal found this approach to be unworkable and overturned the original decision, replacing it with a new banning order that would take effect within three months.
Importantly, the Upper Tribunal also criticised the lower court for not properly considering what would happen to the tenants themselves if they were evicted. The court had identified the affected tenants but had not thought carefully enough about the impact that ending those tenancies would have on them. Evicting the tenants to punish their landlord would be unreasonable.
A banning order does not necessarily mean tenants must leave
One of the key points from this case is that a banning order can take effect while tenants are still living in the property.
Just because a landlord is given a banning order does not mean that existing tenancies must be ended. The Upper Tribunal confirmed that the law can protect existing tenants while restrictions are placed on the landlord.
Action taken against a landlord should not automatically mean that tenants lose their homes, especially when they have done nothing wrong.
For landlords facing regulatory action, this case shows why decisions about existing tenancies should not simply follow as an automatic result of a banning order. The situation of each tenant, the terms of their tenancy, and the legal options for recovering possession of the property all need to be considered carefully.
Eviction in a post-Renters’ Rights Act world
This decision is particularly important because the rules around recovering possession of residential properties have changed significantly.
As the Upper Tribunal noted, since no-fault evictions were abolished on 1 May 2026 under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, requiring a landlord to end existing tenancies is an even greater intrusion on tenants’ rights than it would have been before.
Landlords can no longer assume that they can simply end a residential tenancy without having a proper legal reason to do so.
Whether a landlord is looking to recover a property because of regulatory action, a change in their own circumstances, problems with a tenant, or any other reason, they must now follow the correct legal process.
Trying to remove tenants without understanding the correct grounds and procedure can lead to serious problems, including court proceedings being delayed or failing altogether, and the risk of claims for unlawful eviction.
The Farrah case reinforces a broader point being that action taken against a landlord and the legal relationship between that landlord and their tenants are separate issues.
Get advice before trying to recover a property
This case shows how the tribunal will consider the needs of the tenants and will be very reluctant to see them evicted just to punish an errant landlord. In an increasingly regulated landscape, landlords must carefully ensure their compliance with their obligations and should find a trusted managing agent.
DTM Legal’s Property Litigation team advises landlords and managing agents involved in residential property disputes and possession claims.
If you are dealing with a tenancy or property dispute, get in touch with our Property Litigation team to discuss your options and the best way forward.