You're only getting one side of the story in the press release. There were rats - photographed on the bird feeder, and causing damage in an out-house. The Council inspected, said that feeding had to be reduced to avoid the RISK of infestation, and threatened the Charity with enforcement action if feeding didn't stop. If the Charity hadn't asked all the residents to stop (not just this couple), the Charity would have been prosecuted. The Charity had previously asked them to use tree-feeders only, and stop ground-based feeders, but they wouldn't consider it.
When she says there is no evidence of infestation, this is literally true, because rats have not permanently infested the site, but they were present, and the Council genuinely threatened enforcement.
The real issue throughout has been less to do with rats, or bird-feeding, but will people co-operate in a shared garden to ensure that their landlord isn't prosecuted. There are more red herrings than rats in the story that the papers have got hold of. Otherwise, the court would not have enforced the eviction.