Raglan Housing Association Ltd v Fairclough: CA 1 Nov 2007

The tenant appealed an order for possession. He had been convicted of making indecent images of children. The defendant had moved his tenancy from the property in which the offences had been convicted to a neighbouring property. The landlord said that offence had still been committed in the locality of the house.
Held: The tenant’s appeal was dismissed. The statute was not limited to offences connected only directly with the property at issue. It included for example those residing in or visiting the premises. Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘the tenant can properly be held responsible for the way in which he has behaved in the locality both before he became a tenant and afterwards. To put it bluntly, why should a tenant who was the mystery burglar responsible for thefts from houses in the area before he obtained a tenancy not be at risk of eviction when his identity is discovered and conviction follows?’
Chadwick LJ, May LJ, Moore-Bick LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 1087, Times 28-Nov-2007, [2007] WLR (D) 285, [2008] HLR 21
Bailii
Housing Act 1988 G14
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSchneiders and Sons Ltd v Abrahams 1925
The landlord claimed possession of a dwelling house let on a weekly tenancy, saying the tenant had been convicted of using the premises for an unlawful purpose. The tenant had been convicted of handling stolen goods by receiving them at the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.260142