OK, so the title of this post may be an exaggeration of what is only a passing reference to an old friend in Fareham BC v Miller  EWCA Civ 159. But it is interesting to see it used as part of the ‘nuts and bolts’ of an Article 8/proportionality judgement.
Mr Miller (M) held a non-secure tenancy of a flat with Fareham BC. M was a habitual offender and a long-standing heroin addict who spent his life in and out of prison. On 13/5/10 the council served a notice to quit because of rent arrears which were cleared very soon afterwards. However, by September 2010, it became clear that … Read the full post
You may recall the discussion that took place on this blog of Wandsworth’s secure tenancy terms, introduced in 2009, that sought to introduce a list of things that the tenant, “lodgers, friends, relatives, visitors and any other person living in the property are not allowed to do whilst in the London Borough of Wandsworth”, including causing a nuisance to others, causing damage to property etc. etc. A full list of the terms is at the end of this post.
Our discussion was in the content of Wandsworth seeking to use this clause against the mother of an accused rioter for a possession claim under Ground 1 -breach of tenancy conditions. Wandsworth backed … Read the full post
Birmingham CC v Ashton is a case which illustrates the difficulty that judges face when they are invited to make possession orders on the grounds of nuisance and anti-social behaviour against tenants with mental health problems.
The Council relied on four incidents of ASB between 2004 and 2010, three of which involved Mr Ashton’s next-door neighbour, Ms Benton, and which included threats with a kitchen knife and the brandishing of a samurai sword outside the premises. Mr Ashton was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act. He was also convicted in the Crown Court on 11/10/10 of affray and of possession of an offensive weapon in connection with the samurai … Read the full post
A bit of a miscellany, with Government skullduggery and posturing galore.
First up, Grayling’s MoJ has announced a consultation into revising the rules on Judicial Review. Broadly, he is against it. Responses are due by 24 January 2013, so a busy holiday for the rest of us. Given the dubious inferences drawn from inadequate statistics, people really should respond. Our view from when the first announcement was made is here.
Next, the Home Office draft Anti-Social Behaviour bill is out (officially tomorrow 14/12/2012). The end of ASBOs and ASBIs, closure orders etc. but also the new mandatory ground of possession for breach of an ASB injunction, noise abatement order or … Read the full post
R(Carney) v Bolton-at-Home Limited  EWHC 2553 (Admin)
Did historic ASB by the daughter of a former evicted tenant allow the local authority to refuse to allow her accommodation in the same area? This was the issue in this judicial review of Bolton-at-Home’s (‘Bolton’) decision to refuse a property to Ms Carney.
Ms C was on the housing list for Bolton (the now owner of Bolton MC’s housing stock) and when she was 21, was made a provisional offer for a house in an area of Bolton ‘subject to a verification process’. Bolton then removed the offer, their letter to Ms C stating:
“[having] carried out a verification check [the
… Read the full post
In Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley , Court of Appeal, May 30, 2012 (no transcript available yet), Mr Thorley appealed against an order sentencing him to prison for four months. Amicus Horizon had claimed for possession and an anti-social behaviour injunction against Mr Thorley after he had threatened both the employees of Amicus Horizon and his neighbours. The court made an interim injunction until the trial had been determined.
Mr Thorley was subsequently arrested for breaching the injunction and brought before the court. The court adjourned the question of whether Mr Thorley had breached the interim injunction to the trial and bailed him [I pause at this point to query … Read the full post
Just a brief note on this. As yet no transcript. This is another example of a fairly robust antisocial behaviour decision being upheld on appeal and it reinforces the well established principle that an appellant who is essentially attacking the discretion of the Judge below will find no sympathy in the Court of Appeal.
The background was that a long standing secure tenant had lived in her flat with her three children. Her youngest son aged 19 had been involved in some offending including use and possession of cannabis and had some connection with firearms and ammunition found near the premises. B&D sought possession for both rent arrears and antisocial … Read the full post