The local authority had obtained a possession order against the defendant tenants because of the behaviour of the tenants’ children as ‘conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours’ The question on appeal was whether behaviour which related to properties more than 100 metres away from the house fell within the scope of the section.
Held: Under Simmonds the parents were responsible for the acts of their children. The acts had not however occurred on the premises subject to the order. By a majority, the acts need not occur on the premises.
Judges:
Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Chadwick
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 2693
Statutes:
Housing Act 1985 84(1) Schedule 2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council v Simmonds CA 15-Jul-1996
A possession order was properly made against a tenant for the misbehaviour of a family member. . .
Cited – Cobstone Investments Limited v Maxim CA 1985
The court considered the meaning of ‘adjoining occupiers’ The tenant suggested that the word ‘ adjoining’ should be read literally so that the premises must be contiguous in the sense of physically joining, or being co-terminous with the holding of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.143092
