Raglan Housing Association Ltd v Fairclough [2007] EWCA Civ 1087.
Basically, Housing Act 1988 Schedule 2 Ground 14 (b) means that if if you have been convicted of
an indictable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling-house
the discretionary ground for possession is made out, regardless of whether you were a tenant, or indeed lived in the specific property at the time the offence was committed.
LJ Chadwick goes further in obiter, suggesting that it isn’t even necessary to be a tenant at the time of the conviction for Ground 14(b) to bite. Eh? So a conviction prior to the grant of tenancy could be ground for possession? Ouch.
It is very unlikely that Parliament did intend to include convictions prior to tenancy. Does this now mean someone with pre-con would not be able to get a secure, AT or AST?
I agree. As it stands this was obiter, dissenting from the view of the other two Court of Appeal Judges that a teneancy had to be in existence when a conviction took place.
I can’t see Chadwick’s view myself. But in any event the decision only applies to Ground 14 possession claims, so couldn’t prevent people getting tenancies in the first place, or so I think - ending a tenancy not ruling one out in the first place.
The decision has nothing to do with allocations under Part VI or duties under Part VII, so I can’t see that it will impact on who gets a tenancy.
Save that this is HA 1988, so not engaging Part VI or Part VII HA 1985 duties anyway, exactly - a ground for possession, not a basis to refuse tenancy in the first place, prevent succession etc..
Entirely agree.
Taken from
http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/bulletins/category/bulletin_detail.cfm?iBulletinID=264
23 April 2008
Fairclough v Raglan Housing Association
The House of Lords has refused Mr Fairclough leave to appeal in this case about the reach of the “nuisance ground” for possession (Schedule 2 Ground 14 Housing Act 1988) against assured tenants.
Thanks - missed that. Not wholly surprised.