Section: Antisocial Behaviour

Case Law Update

Cambridge CC v Joyce [2009] EWCA Civ, [2009] All ER (D) 234 (Feb)

The Council obtained an Injunction, restraining a secure tenant from annoying his neighbours, particularly by his use of surveillance equipment in his street.

In response to 23 alleged breaches of that Order, it sought his committal to prison and also brought a possession claim. The judge was satisfied that 14 breaches were made out. He granted an outright 28 day Possession Order and imposed a 21 day suspended sentence of imprisonment.

The tenant appealed, contending that the Council had a vendetta against him. The Court of Appeal upheld the Possession Order and the sentence.

___________

Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11

Mr D and Mr M were neighbours and council tenants. Mr D caused serious antisocial behaviour. That was well known to the council landlord. Mr D had smashed the windows and door of Mr M's home. The council called Mr D to a meeting and told him that a Notice Seeking Possession would be served and any further act of nuisance would lead to his eviction.

Mr D went straight from the meeting to confront and kill Mr M. The victim's family claimed compensation from the Council for not evicting Mr D earlier and for not warning Mr M about the meeting that was going to take place.

The House of Lords dismissed the claim. It held that - in the absence of an indication by the Council's words or actions that it had assumed responsibility for Mr M's safety - it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose on the Council a duty to take care to avoid injury or damage to him.

___________

Hampshire Police Authority v Smith [2009] EWHC 174 (Admin)

On 30 August 2007, a Magistrates' Court made a "crack house" Closure Order in respect of a residential property occupied by Ms S, her partner and three children.

On 8 October 2007, she submitted Notice of Appeal, seeking a hearing in the Crown Court. That was 18 days beyond the 21 day time limit stated in section 6(2) of the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003.

The Divisional Court held that the time limit was strict and that even if the delay had been caused by difficulty obtaining Legal Aid (as Ms S contended) there was no power to extend it and the appeal could not be heard.

___________

Pullen v Dublin City Council [2008] IEHC 379

The claimants were council tenants. Having received complaints of antisocial behaviour relating to them, the Council served Notice to Quit and, when that expired, sought a Warrant for Possession. The court had no alternative but to grant that Order on proof of service of a valid Notice to Quit (Housing Act 1966 section 62).

The claimants claimed that the Council had breached their convention rights under Articles 6, 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 by seeking the termination of their tenancy and possession by a process which did not allow them to be heard by an independent tribunal on the issue of whether they had committed the acts of antisocial behaviour.

The High Court in Ireland agreed and held that the Council had not acted in a way compatible with the human rights of the claimants.

Note: This case was decided some months ago but is included here given its general importance.

___________

X and Y v Hounslow LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 286

The claimants were very vulnerable and disabled council tenants. The Council was aware that they were subject to antisocial behaviour. That culminated in an exceptionally serious incident in which both were assaulted in their home.

The High Court found that the Council had negligently failed to arrange an exceptional emergency transfer to temporary accommodation before the assault.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Council's appeal. It held that the Council did not owe the couple a duty of care and, even if there had been a duty to take reasonable care, that duty would not have been breached.

___________

McGlynn v Welwyn Hatfield DC [2009] EWCA Civ 285

Mr McG applied to the Council for homelessness assistance for himself and his wife who was pregnant. The Council provided him with temporary accommodation in a non-secure tenancy.

When the Council later received complaints from other residents about antisocial conduct, it served Notice to Quit and, eleven months later, brought a possession claim.

Mr McG's defence was that the decision to bring the claim had been unreasonable. He relied on his right to respect for his home under Article 8 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and "Gateway (b)" of the decision in Kay v Lambeth LBC.

The Court of Appeal was satisfied that on the facts it was seriously arguable that the Council's decision to bring the claim was one that no reasonable Council could have reached and it remitted the claim for trial.

___________

Knowsley Housing Trust v Prescott [2009] EWHC 924 (QB)[2009] All ER (D) 08 (May)

The defendants were joint assured tenants of the Trust (a housing association). One of them was convicted of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs in the local area. The offence was so serious that a sentence of 8 years imprisonment was imposed on a guilty plea.

The Trust brought a claim for possession relying on the offence. A judge granted a Possession Order but postponed it on condition that the house should not be used for drug dealing.

The Trust appealed. The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted an Outright Possession Order. The trial judge had given too much weight to the fact that the house itself had not been used to deal drugs, too little weight to the seriousness of the offence and the scale of the tenant's local drug-dealing, and had given insufficient attention to the prospects for the future. There was no sound basis for an expectation that the drug dealing would cease.

Section: Antisocial Behaviour

Case Law Update

Legal Update

Reporting on Feb-Apr 2009

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods