He told me his two children, I think they are 3 & 5 year running around with their cycle in the flat. They are living in the first floor.

Complainant is living at the ground floor flat. Whether he breached/disobeyed the Court order (consented), technically his children were. The question should be, do they aware of the consequences of breaching the Court order.

Instead of send these children to social services, their father was sent to prison (bit harsh).

Circle 33 should have moved either Mr K or the complainant to another property, prefer this litigation.

At the end, Mr K is legally aided, and Circle 33 is a social landlord. I think its a waste of taxpayers money on both side.

Cripes (was gonna use the name of a prophet, but my free-speech-ometer said eee-aaah!) I’m on his side after all!

JS, you’re way out of my brain-league. I don’t understand what you’re saying.

But all I’m saying no more than don’t criminalise those who breach the terms of a tenancy agreement, just withdraw the great privilege of having the tenancy in the first place.

If they don’t see it as a privilege, ok. If they don’t like the responsibilities the tenancy requires. Fine. Ciao bello.

This appears to be a proper decision by the CA if someone is to be committed to prison for breach of an order you must be sure he has committed the conduct the order prohibits – as the order was drafted in the way it was once there is no finding of fact that he either engaged or encouraged then the application should have been dismissed.

As to the guidance recommending eviction as a last resort I’m lost for words. But a lot less surprised that the sort of behaviour complained of is so prevalent.

The guidance really couldn’t be more wrong.

If Mr K was a first time offender, then I’m not comfortable about criminalising someone for playing records too loud. Neither, I bet, are his neighbours. The appropriate action is to say:-

“Sorry Mr K, but you can’t live here any more. But no problem, you’ve got a clean record and we wish you all the best in finding a landlord and neighbours who can accommodate your lifesyle.”

It’s not putting the problem on anyone else, apart from Mr K who will have to learn to mend his ways – or get rich quick.

I think you are also misinformed if you think judges rarely take action at committal hearings, especially where anti-social behaviour is concerned.

Injunctions are often sought in anti-social behaviour cases as an initial step towards controlling anti-social behaviour (indeed all the guidance says eviction should be a last resort and other avenues should be explored first).

The rational is that it is better to try and solve the problem of anti-social behaviour while the LA or HA still has a modicum of control over the tenant. Evicting someone without trying to solve the problem of anti-social behaviour often just has the effect of passing the problem onto someone else.

Finally, I’d also be careful about using phrases such as “[... edited by NL]” when there is no evidence of the defendant in this case ever having been to prison. That is defamatory and following the recent decision of Eady J bloggers now lack anonymnity: see http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece .

I don’t think the landlord brought any possession claims, and certainly there was no claim before the judge. This was purely a committal application by the landlord. There was therefore no way that the judge could order possession or eviction.

I don’t know if he spent any time in prison, in view of the appeal. But if he had, the tenancy would still have been his.

But it does seem excessive and unecessary to send someone to prison – an ultimately useless punishment for those other than the ‘dangerous to society’ sort. But no punishment at all for those Norman Stanley Fletchers who see prison as an occupational hazard.

I very much hope the judge wasn’t acting the tough guy by sending [... removed by NL] for a bit of re-training at a cushy country retreat because he didn’t have the heart to levy the more appropriate sanction of possession and eviction.

I’m guessing that our perp is on benefits – he had solicitors at his beckon call as few working men could – and the thought of the state keeping his bed warm while he enjoyed his sojourn must be as infuriating for his long-suffering neighbours as the noise nuisance itself.

Anyone know if he moved back to the same place upon release?