| HOUSING —Secure tenancy— Claim for possession — Offence committed by the prospective tenant prior to taking up tenancy — Conviction after taking up tenancy — Whether offence committed prior to taking up tenancy sufficient ground to make possession order — Housing Act 1988, s 7, Sch 2, ground 14, as amended by the Housing Act 1996, s 148
Raglan Housing Association Ltd v Alex Patrick Fairclough
CA: (Chadwick and Moore-Bick LJJ): 1 November 2007
Where a person was arrested for indictable offences occurring before taking up a tenancy and was convicted of them during the course of the tenancy, the landlord was entitled to a possession order under ground 14 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988.
The Court of Appeal so stated dismissing an appeal of the tenant, Alex Patrick Fairclough, from the decision of Judge Burford QC dated 26 January 2007 sitting in the Southampton County Court making an order for possession in favour of the landlord, Raglan Housing Association Ltd. On 6 May 2004 the defendant was arrested on suspicion of offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978. On 24 January 2005 he was granted a tenancy of 5 Banks Cottages; on 10 March 2006 he pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced for 12 months’ imprisonment. The tenant argued that the provisions did not apply since the offences occurred prior to the tenancy.
S 7 of the Act and ground 14 of Sch 2, as amended provide: “7— Orders for Possession. (1) The court shall not make an order for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy except on one or more of the grounds set out in Sch 2 to this Act;...(2) The following provisions of this section shall have effect ... in relation to proceedings for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy.”
MOORE-BICK LJ said that the it was the presence within the locality of persons who have demonstrated by their previous behaviour that they were likely to annoy, intimidate or otherwise make themselves a serious nuisance to other residents and thereby adversely affected their quality of life. It should be remembered that ground 14 merely contained a precondition (or as the judge put it a “hurdle”) to the exercise of the court’s power to grant possession. The court was not entitled to exercise that power unless it was satisfied that it was reasonable to do so and in making that decision it should take into account the effect that the tenant’s behaviour had already had on other people in the locality, any continuing effect which was likely to follow from it and the effect that any repetition of the same behaviour would be likely to have. Having regard to these matters, His Lordship could see no reason, either in the language of ground 14 or in the underlying policy, to think that Parliament intended to limit its scope in the manner suggested on behalf of the tenant. He sought to persuade us, however, that clear evidence of such an intention could be found in various statements made during the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons.
CHADWICK LJ delivered a concurring judgment.
|
