Eviction of Troublesome Tenants

 

The tenant lived in a block of flats with her two grown-up sons, the flats were owned by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the local authority therefore was the landlord. The local authority issued possession proceedings against the tenant in 2005 on grounds of rent arrears. A suspended possession order was originally granted which ordered the tenant to pay the full rent and an amount towards the arrears otherwise an outright possession order could be sought.

 

Between 2005 and 2009 the tenant failed to keep up with her rent payments and the local authority consequently made a number of applications for a warrant of possession. In each case the tenant successfully applied to suspend the warrant.

 

By 2010 there were a number of allegations of the tenant’s sons engaging in serious anti-social behaviour including drug use and the possession of weapons. The local authority applied for an outright possession order on grounds of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. The local authority also applied for an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) against both of the tenant’s sons.

 

The court initially adjourned the matter and ordered for the level of rent arrears to be determined at the next hearing. The court did find however that one of the tenant’s sons had committed various acts of anti-social behaviour and made an ASBO against him. The terms of the ASBO prevented him from associating with certain people or loitering in the communal areas of his block of flats.

 

By the time of the second hearing in 2011 the tenant had reduced her rent arrears to an acceptable level. The court therefore confirmed that it could make an outright possession order on the ground of anti-social behaviour only as the facts as to the ASBO had already been determined by the court.

The tenant argued that she had recently attempted to exclude her son from the property and asked the court to suspend the possession order on terms that she continue to attempt to exclude her son.

 

Although an order for possession on the grounds of anti-social behaviour is a discretionary order, the court refused to exercise its discretion as the court considered that the behaviour would continue in spite of a suspended possession order. The tenant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the court had not properly considered the steps she had proposed to form the terms of a suspended possession order.

 

The Court of Appeal held that it was within HHJ Platt’s discretion to find that the anti-social behaviour would continue if a suspended order were made and upheld his decision to make an outright order. The tenant and her son had been given sufficient warning at the first hearing and had failed to adequately address the serious breaches of the tenancy agreement. The Court of Appeal had no grounds to interfere with the lower court’s decision.

 

This case demonstrates that the courts will not suffer tenants who fail to heed repeated warnings. Affordable housing providers should be in a strong position when bringing either possession proceedings or injunction applications to address anti-social behaviour if they can show evidence that repeated warnings have been given but ignored.

 

To ensure that strong supporting evidence is available if a case goes to court, housing providers must have clear procedures. Those procedures should include written warnings at prescribed intervals and follow-up appointments to assess whether the warnings have had any effect. It is useful to have precedent warning letters available and all case managers should be trained to ensure that they are used appropriately and effectively