The House of Lords will be giving judgment in Glasgow CC v Mitchell on Wednesday 18 Feb 09 (link is to a .pdf). This is a case that we’ve missed so far but, in essence, is about the scope of the duty of care (if any) owed by a landlord to their tenants in respect of liability for the anti-social acts of another tenant. In outline, it is said that Mr Mitchell complained to Glasgow CC about his neighbour. He told Glasgow not to let his neighbour know about the complaint. Glasgow then interviewed the neighbour and told him about the complaint, naming Mr Mitchell. The neighbour then killed Mr … Read the full post
Tag Archive for 'anti-social behaviour'
Page 2 of 3
Two new Statutory Instruments have just come out relating to this Act, and, given that I’m updating my seminar notes about the 2008 Act, I thought I’d share them with you.
The Allocation of Housing (England) (Amendment) (Family Intervention Tenancies) Regulations 2008 deal with the interaction between the new Family Intervention Tenancy (“FIT”)in the 2008 Act and Part 6, Housing Act 1996. In broad terms, Part 6 of the 1996 Act, and the subordinate SIs, deal with the rules and procedure for the allocation of property by local housing authorities.
What the 2008 SI does is to disapply Part 6 in relation to the FIT, so that any local housing … Read the full post
Webb v Wandsworth LBC (Court of Appeal, November 12, 2008, extempore judgment and only noted in Arden Chambers Eflash 328)
Ms Webb was the secure tenant of LB Wandsworth. Between 2005 and 2006 her son was involved in a number of serious criminal and anti-social acts in the local area. In response, Wandsworth issued possession proceedings relying on Grounds 1 and 2, Sch. 2 Housing Act 1985. Shortly thereafter, an ASBO was made against the son. The son subsequently left the family home, although he would regularly return to visit his mother.
The possession trial came on in October 2007. There had been no ASB for a year and … Read the full post
The August 2008 Legal Action contains a couple of cases concerning anti-social behaviour possession claims that weren’t recorded elsewhere.
Ealing LBC v Jama B5/08/0104 was a Court of Appeal matter. Mrs Jama was Ealing’s secure tenant of a two bed property. The household included her husband and six children. Ealing sought possession on allegations of ASB including noise nuisance, ten instances of flooding into the flat below, problems with rubbish disposal and urination in the lift. At the County Court, the judge accepted Mrs Jama had faced some harassment, but did not accept her evidence on the flooding. The judge accepted the evidence of a plumber that the flooding was … Read the full post
North Devon Homes Ltd. v Batchelor [2008] EWCA Civ 840 concerned a claim for possession of an assured tenancy. At County Court, the claim was brought on grounds 10, 12 and 14 HA 1988. While the claim resulted in a postponed possession order for ground 10 rent arrears, the claims on ground 12 (non-performance of obligation) and 14 (nuisance/arrestable offence). The Circuit Judge had refused to make a possession order on grounds 12 and 14 on the basis that it was not reasonable to do so.
North Devon appealed that decision, arguing that the Judge took into an account an irrelevant matter, had failed to consider a relevant matter and … Read the full post
Update on this case from Friday 24 May. No judgment available yet that I have seen, but there is a further new story on the Hounslow case at 24dash.com, which gives a few more details.
Specifically, the negligent failure found was that housing did not invoke emergency transfer processes, despite a) social services involvement with the family and b) complaints and warnings from neighbours about the youths’ presence and activities in the claimant’s home. It arose from a found lack of communication between social services and housing and lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the situation and failure to give priority in both departments, despite the evidence.
Damage … Read the full post
A case is reported in the Guardian which apparently extends local authorities’ duty to protect tenants from third parties to include vulnerable adults, not only children.
A couple, both with learning difficulties, were terrorised in their flat by a group of youths over two days, during which they were assaulted and abused. Hounslow Council had failed to rehouse the couple, although the threat of attack ‘was foreseeable’.
At the High Court, Hounslow argued there was no duty of care, but Mr Justice Maddison held otherwise. The failure to rehouse was negligent. Damages of £100,000 were awarded. Hounslow were given permission to appeal.
I’m looking forward to seeing the judgment on … Read the full post
Recent Comments