england-and-wales civil-law immigration executive
When do Section 33D notices actually get used?
<p>Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 describes the effect of such a notice being issued upon landlords by the Home Office, and the content of such notices makes obvious when it can be sent and might be sent, but what operational guidance procedures specify when the Home Office actually uses this provision? What can trigger the Home Office's operational procedures to actually send such a notice, or has the provision entirely fallen out of use?</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>When do 33D(2) notices actually get used?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>When, in accordance with <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/22/section/33D?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 33D(1)</a>, Immigration Act 2014 the conditions at s.32D(2) have been met:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The condition is that the Secretary of State has given one or more notices in writing to the landlord which, taken together,—</p>
<ul>
<li><p>(a)identify the occupier of the premises or (if there is more than one occupier) all of them, and</p>
</li>
<li><p>(b)state that the occupier or occupiers are disqualified as a result of their immigration status from occupying premises under a residential tenancy agreement.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><strong>What operational guidance procedures specify when the home office actually uses this provision?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>There are no, that I can find, open-source &quot;operational guidance procedures&quot; available. Those that may exist within the Home Office will in all likelihood follow the requirements and conditions stipulated in section 33D of the 2014 Act, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/8?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 8</a> Housing Act 1988, and at the <a href="https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-83-writs-and-warrants-general-provisions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rules 83.9(5A) and 83.13(2) at Part 83</a> Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>What can trigger the Home Office's operational procedures to actually send such a notice?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>When there is sufficient evidence, and it is proportionate and necessary to do so after taking in to account, for example, all the available information about the landlord, the occupiers' immigration status, and the public interest in terminating the agreement.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Has the provision entirely fallen out of use?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>I have not been able to find any publicly available data on this topic, so one option would be to submit a Freedom of Information request for an answer.</p>
<p><strong>Also</strong>, from a comment:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>It is almost surely specified/codified in some operational guidance document somewhere, and even if such is non statutory guidance, courts are still semi-bound to lend it some weight in legal contexts.</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>Whether or not to issue of a 33D notice is an operational case-by-case decision based on particular circumstances, so if a court (more likely an Immigration Tribunal) needs to consider the Home Office's internal mechanics, authorisation requirements, quality assurance and other such processes (which, hopefully, should be recorded in detail) then the normal production of evidence / disclosure / discovery rules would apply (with any non-relevant parts properly redacted to prevent unnecessary disclosure).</p>
