Possession Proportionate

West Kent Housing Association has successfully recovered possession against a tenant who defended the claim on the grounds 'proportionality', made famous in the 'Pinnock' Supreme Court ruling. The housing association pursued possession against the tenant, Mr Alan Grant after receiving complaints of anti-social behaviour. Mr Grant’s main defences were that the possession process had been "unlawful" and was "disproportionate" within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. His defences were dismissed summarily in the Tunbridge Wells County Court, the latter in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manchester City Council v Pinnock . Mr Grant claimed that the housing association had other remedies available including an anti-social behaviour injunction. Dismissing the defence, District Judge Hebblethwaite found that Mr Grant had agreed to a starter tenancy and was aware of the consequences of breaching its terms. In light of the anti-social behaviour that Mr Grant had admitted, it was not seriously arguable that evicting him was disproportionate. Mr Grant's case was dismissed and an outright possession order was made, enforceable in 14 days.

Former Blackpool Council Tenants take case to European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights is to scrutinise the procedures social landlords can use to evict tenants alleged to have committed anti-social behaviour following the application of former Blackpool Council tenants. The UK government will be required to respond as to whether the eviction of Blackpool council tenants Paul and Amanda Wilkes in 2007 complied with parts of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr and Mrs Wilkes and their two children, had their one-year introductory tenancy terminated following 57 incidents of alleged anti-social behaviour, which included threats to kill a neighbour and to burn down a block of flats. They lodged an appeal with the court later that year.
The European Court of Human Rights wants to establish whether Blackpool Council’s decision to evict the family was proportionate, and that the review panel which confirmed the decision was sufficiently independent.

The investigation follows the Supreme Court ruling involving Manchester Council tenant Cleveland Pinnock, in which the court ruled there must be proportionality when landlords carry out mandatory possession hearings - especially where landlords have an unqualified right to posses a home, such as on introductory tenancies.

Blackppol Gazette - 15 June 2011

Shapps Taking Shortcuts

Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, is once again disregarding the Supreme Court by proposing a mandatory power of repossession which would take into consideration previous offences if a social tenant has consistently behaved in an anti-social manner. Any changes would be introduced in a Home Office bill over the next year
The intention is to include trigger offences such as:

• A conviction for a serious offence related to housing, including violence against neighbours, drug dealing and criminal damage.
• Breach of an injunction for anti-social behaviour obtained by a landlord.
• Closing of a premises under a closure order – such as a home used for drug dealing.

Announcing the proposals Grant Shapps said:
 ‘All too often, efforts to tackle neighbours from hell take far too long, and it seems the needs and right of the victims play second fiddle to those of the perpetrators. That’s why I’m looking to speed up the process, so where a social housing tenant already has a conviction for anti-social behaviour and the situation has not improved this can be taken into account and landlords can act swiftly to bring to an end to the day-to-day misery that is inflicted for too long on those simply seeking to quietly enjoy their homes. Of course eviction is a drastic step and should be the last resort that landlords take to tackle this menace – but when all other options have failed to stop this yobbish behaviour, victims should not have to wait months or even years to see justice done.’

One of the problems with the proposals is that there is already recourse for social landlords to deal with perpetrators of serious anti-social behaviour quite swiftly including by obtaining an order for possession on discretionary grounds and Judges whilst having to exercise proportionality, frequently do not take anti-social behaviour lightly. There are problems with mandatory possession orders which have been proven to be a breach of human rights and not proportionate in some cases particularly where a tenant has not been given the opportunity to redress their behaviour. Additionally, injunctions and closure orders can temporarily displace someone from their home or from a specified area in any event.

The total disregard for the ruling in Pinnock v Manchester CC in which the Supreme Court ruled that courts must test the proportionality of a landlord’s decision to carry out mandatory possession proceedings, meant that a court must take into account a tenant’s personal circumstances is once more a slight on the rule of law. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, this did not affect the outcome of the Pinnock case as after they took into account the personal circumstances, they ordered possession. However, the case has had an impact on other hearings.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released guidance for Social Landlords ‘Human Rights at Home’.

If landlords follow the correct procedure to obtain possession and act in a proportionate manner in the first manner then they should not fall foul of the law in the first place.  See Inside Housing - Flood Defences