Protection from Harassment Act 1997 & Illegal Eviction

Reviewed by Bradley Askew, Solicitor (non-practising), England & Wales. Reviewed 13 July 2026.

Illegal eviction and harassment of a tenant are criminal offences in England and Wales — regardless of arrears, regardless of anti-social behaviour, regardless of how legitimate the landlord's underlying grievance is. Two Acts do the work: the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which is housing-specific and covers unlawful eviction and landlord harassment directly, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which is general-purpose and covers harassment, stalking, and threats of violence in any context, including the landlord-tenant relationship. Since 1 May 2026, the stakes have changed on both sides: the Renters' Rights Act 2025 abolished Section 21, removing the fast no-reason paper route to possession, and in the same reform gave local housing authorities a new power to impose a civil financial penalty of up to £40,000 for illegal eviction and harassment — without needing a criminal conviction first. This page sets out the offences, the penalties, the civil remedies, and what changed under the 2025 Act.

There is only ever one lawful route to possession: a court order, enforced (if the tenant does not leave) by a bailiff or High Court enforcement officer. No landlord conduct outside that route — changing locks, removing belongings, cutting off utilities, repeated unannounced visits, threats — is ever lawful "self-help," no matter what the tenancy agreement says or how strong the landlord's underlying case is.

Why this page covers two Acts

The 1977 and 1997 Acts overlap in landlord-tenant disputes but are not the same thing, and the distinction matters for which remedy applies.

The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 is a housing statute. It creates the specific criminal offence of unlawfully depriving a residential occupier of their home (section 1(2)) and a specific offence of harassment intended to make the occupier leave or give up their rights (sections 1(3) and 1(3A)). It applies only to residential premises and only where the conduct relates to the occupier's right to occupy.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a general-purpose statute originally aimed at stalking. It applies wherever a "course of conduct" (at least two occasions) amounts to harassment, in any context — it does not need to be housing-related at all, but it frequently applies alongside the 1977 Act where a landlord's conduct is persistent and distressing rather than a single act of eviction.

In practice, the offences overlap heavily: a landlord who repeatedly visits, threatens, or cuts off services to force a tenant out will typically commit an offence under both Acts. Prosecutors and local authorities choose whichever route best fits the facts and evidence, and a tenant's civil claim can draw on remedies under both.

The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 — the core offences

Unlawful eviction — section 1(2)

Any person who unlawfully deprives a residential occupier of their occupation of premises, or attempts to, commits an offence — unless they can prove they believed, with reasonable cause, that the occupier had already ceased to reside there. This is the offence that applies to changing locks, removing a tenant's belongings, or otherwise physically excluding them from the property without a court order.

It makes no difference whether the tenancy has technically ended, whether rent is owed, or whether the landlord has valid grounds for possession. Grounds for possession are a matter for the court, not a licence for self-help.

Harassment — sections 1(3) and 1(3A)

Section 1(3) covers any person who, intending to make a residential occupier give up occupation or abandon their rights, does acts likely to interfere with the occupier's peace or comfort, or persistently withholds services reasonably required for occupation (for example, cutting off electricity, water, or heating).

Section 1(3A), inserted by the Housing Act 1988, creates a parallel and slightly wider offence specific to landlords and their agents: it applies where the landlord or agent does such acts or withholds such services and knows or has reasonable cause to believe the conduct is likely to cause the occupier to leave or give up their rights — the prosecution does not need to prove specific intent, only that the landlord knew or should have known the likely effect. A landlord has a defence under section 1(3B) if they can show reasonable grounds for their actions (for example, a genuine, properly-notified essential repair that temporarily interrupts a service).

Penalties

Under section 1(4): on summary conviction (magistrates' court), a fine and/or up to 6 months' imprisonment; on conviction on indictment (Crown Court), an unlimited fine and/or up to 2 years' imprisonment. Directors, managers, or company secretaries of a corporate landlord can be personally liable alongside the company where the offence is committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect (section 1(6)).

New from 1 May 2026 — the £40,000 civil penalty

The Renters' Rights Act 2025 inserted a new section 1A into the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, in force from 1 May 2026. It gives local housing authorities the power to impose a civil financial penalty of up to £40,000 on anyone they are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, has committed a section 1 offence — without bringing a criminal prosecution at all. This sits alongside, not on top of, prosecution: a local authority cannot impose a penalty and prosecute for the same conduct, and once a financial penalty has been imposed for particular conduct, the person cannot be convicted of the section 1 offence in respect of that same conduct (new section 1(7)).

This is a significant enforcement shift. Previously the only route for a section 1 offence was prosecution — resource-intensive, evidentially demanding, and comparatively rare. A civil penalty, decided by the local authority itself on a civil standard of process (albeit still requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt of the underlying offence), is faster to bring and does not require the involvement of the Crown Prosecution Service. GOV.UK's guidance for tenants already reflects the new maximum, confirming that local councils can prosecute or fine up to £40,000 for harassment or illegal eviction. Local housing authorities also have a statutory duty under the wider 2025 Act reforms to investigate and take enforcement action, with expanded powers to obtain financial information from landlords and third parties.

Section 21's abolition and the illegal eviction risk

From 1 May 2026, Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 has been abolished. Landlords no longer have a no-reason, largely procedural route to possession; every possession claim — including the accelerated procedure landlords once used for a clean Section 21 case — now runs through the grounds-based Section 8 process, with an expanded set of grounds but a court hearing required in every case.

This is worth stating plainly on a page about illegal eviction: the removal of the fast paper route is exactly the kind of change that has historically correlated with an uptick in landlord self-help. A landlord frustrated by a slower, evidential possession process, or unable to make out a Section 8 ground, may be tempted to change the locks, stop paying for services, or "encourage" a tenant to leave rather than wait for a court date. That temptation is understandable and legally catastrophic. Every one of those actions is a criminal offence under the 1977 Act — now carrying a potential £40,000 civil penalty as well as the original criminal exposure — and does nothing to shorten the route to lawful possession, since a court will still require the landlord to prove their case (and self-help conduct is itself evidence a tenant and court will use against the landlord, including in any counterclaim).

If a Section 8 ground genuinely applies, use it properly — see our Section 8 notice guide. If no ground applies, the tenancy continues; that is the position under the current law, not a gap to be closed by unlawful conduct.

Civil remedies for illegal eviction — Housing Act 1988

Separately from any prosecution or civil penalty, an illegally evicted occupier has a direct civil claim against the landlord under sections 27 and 28 of the Housing Act 1988. The measure of damages is unusual and can be severe: it is based not on the tenant's actual losses (removal costs, temporary accommodation, distress) but on the increase in the value of the landlord's interest in the property as a result of the eviction — broadly, the difference between the property's value with the tenant in occupation and its value with vacant possession. Where that gain is substantial (for example, where the eviction allowed the landlord to sell or re-let at a materially higher figure), the damages award can significantly exceed anything the tenant could otherwise have recovered. The claim exists in addition to any criminal proceedings or civil penalty — none of these routes precludes the others.

Rent Repayment Orders

A tenant, former tenant, or local housing authority can apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a Rent Repayment Order where the landlord has committed specified housing offences, including unlawful eviction and harassment under section 1 of the 1977 Act (extended to cover these offences by the Housing and Planning Act 2016). Under the Renters' Rights Act 2025 reforms, the maximum a tenant can recover through a Rent Repayment Order has doubled from 12 months' rent to up to 24 months' rent in the most serious cases, the application window has been extended, and a landlord who has previously faced enforcement for the same type of offence must now be ordered to repay the maximum amount if they offend again.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 — the wider offences

Where landlord conduct is persistent and distressing but does not fit neatly within the 1977 Act's housing-specific offences — or where the conduct continues after the tenancy has ended, or targets the tenant's family — the 1997 Act provides a broader toolkit.

Harassment — sections 1 and 2

Section 1 prohibits a "course of conduct" (at least two occasions) which the person knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment — alarming a person or causing them distress. Section 2 makes breach a criminal offence: summary only, up to 6 months' imprisonment and/or a fine.

Stalking — section 2A

Inserted by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, section 2A criminalises harassment involving stalking-type behaviours — following the victim, contacting them repeatedly, monitoring their internet use, watching their home, or interfering with their property. Maximum sentence: 51 weeks' imprisonment and/or a fine on summary conviction (six months for conduct predating the relevant Criminal Justice Act 2003 commencement).

Putting a person in fear of violence — section 4

Section 4 applies where a course of conduct (at least two occasions) causes the victim to fear that violence will be used against them. It is triable either way: up to 6 months on summary conviction, or up to 10 years' imprisonment on indictment (raised from 5 to 10 years by the Policing and Crime Act 2017, in force since 3 April 2017).

Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress — section 4A

Also inserted in 2012, section 4A criminalises stalking behaviour that either causes the victim to fear violence on at least two occasions, or causes serious alarm or distress with a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day life. It is triable either way, with the same maximum as section 4 — 10 years' imprisonment on indictment — reflecting Parliament's view that both fear-of-violence and serious-alarm stalking are, at the top end, equally serious.

Civil remedy — section 3

Section 3 creates a standalone civil cause of action for damages and/or an injunction, available whether or not there has been a criminal prosecution. Breach of an injunction is itself a criminal offence under section 3(6). The civil claim carries a 6-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980, far longer than the 6-month time limit that applies to prosecuting the summary offences — so a tenant (or landlord) who does not pursue a criminal complaint promptly still retains the civil route for years afterward.

How landlords end up liable

Liability under both Acts most commonly arises from conduct landlords may not think of as criminal:

• Changing locks or removing belongings without a court order — unlawful eviction under the 1977 Act regardless of the reason.
• Cutting off or threatening to cut off services — electricity, water, heating, or internet — to pressure a tenant to leave.
• Repeated unannounced visits, especially after being asked to stop, or entering without the notice required under the tenancy.
• Aggressive or threatening communications — texts, calls, or letters — particularly a pattern of contact after the tenant has asked it to stop.
• Withholding keys, providing only one set to a multi-occupant household, or refusing to replace lost keys as a pressure tactic.
• Surveillance — cameras pointed at living areas, monitoring movements, or contacting the tenant's employer or family without legitimate reason.
• Threats involving third parties — threatening to report a tenant to immigration authorities, involve family members, or otherwise escalate beyond the tenancy itself.

Single incidents rarely meet the threshold for the 1997 Act's harassment offences (which require a course of conduct), but a single unlawful eviction under the 1977 Act is enough on its own — there is no "course of conduct" requirement for section 1(2).

Defences

Both Acts provide narrow defences, and courts apply them cautiously:

• 1977 Act, section 1(3B): a landlord has a defence to the section 1(3A) harassment offence if they can show reasonable grounds for the acts or withholding of services — for example, a properly-notified, genuinely necessary repair.
• 1997 Act, section 1(3): pursuit of conduct for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; pursuit under an enactment or rule of law (for example, lawful service of a notice); or pursuit that was reasonable in all the circumstances.

A landlord who communicates or acts through proper, professional, and infrequent channels — and who uses the court process rather than direct pressure — will normally stay within these defences. One whose conduct is repeated, escalating, or accompanied by any element of threat will not.

Practical guidance

If you are managing a difficult tenancy

Use the court process, not direct pressure. If a Section 8 ground applies, serve the correct notice and let the court process run — see our eviction notices section. Keep all communication written, professional, and infrequent. Never enter the property, remove belongings, or interfere with services without either the tenant's consent or a lawful court order and, where required, a bailiff. Where the relationship has broken down, route communication through a managing agent or solicitor.

If you are the target of tenant harassment

Document everything — dates, content, and any witnesses. Where conduct involves threats or fear of violence, report to the police; even without a prosecution, a police record supports a later civil claim. Take advice early from a specialist property litigation solicitor, and consider whether a section 3 injunction under the 1997 Act is the fastest way to stop the conduct while the underlying tenancy issue is resolved separately.

This page is general guidance on the law in England and Wales and is not legal advice on your specific situation. Both illegal eviction and harassment carry criminal, civil, and — since 1 May 2026 — civil-penalty consequences that turn heavily on the exact facts; take advice from a solicitor or, for tenants, Shelter or Citizens Advice, before acting.

Authoritative sources

• Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
• Renters' Rights Act 2025.
• GOV.UK: harassment and illegal evictions.
• GOV.UK: civil penalties under the Renters' Rights Act 2025.
• CPS legal guidance: stalking or harassment.
• Our Protection from Eviction Act 1977 guide — full treatment of the 1977 Act's offences and defences.