The Defendant appealed against the order for possession made against her in respect of her secure tenancy of a flat, made on the grounds that her son, now 18 years old and living with her and her partner, had committed repeated acts of nuisance and annoyance to neighbouring residents and had been convicted of an indictable offence committed in the locality. The Defendant contented that a consideration of the lack of allegations of nuisance directed at the Defendant was omitted from the judgment.
Held: The appeal failed.
Vos LJ said: ‘the question of reasonableness focuses, as section 85A requires, on the effect of the nuisance and annoyance on others, not on the direct responsibility for the nuisance and annoyance. The judge must, however, take account of all relevant circumstances in a broad, common-sense way. Such circumstances will, even in relation to reasonableness, include, in a general way, the responsibility of the tenant for the nuisance. One reason for that in this case is that ground 1 relates specifically to contractual breaches of the tenancy agreement.’ The judge had, however satisfied these requirements.
The Defendant had not said that she would exclude her son if his behaviour persisted, but was instead in denial.
Vos, Treacy, McCombe LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1669
Bailii
Housing Act 1985 84 85A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Newcastle City Council v Morrison CA 2000
The court reviewed the principles applicable when asking whether it is reasonable to make an order for possession against a tenant on grounds of nuisance: a) When considering reasonableness, the Judge must take account of all relevant circumstances . .
Cited – Portsmouth City Council v Bryant CA 2000
It may be unreasonable to impose a possession order against a person in respect of a failing over which they have no control.
Simon Brown LJ said, having reviewed the existing authorities: ‘Those authorities clearly hold that no personal fault . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Ashton CA 29-Nov-2012
The council challenged a decision as to their claim for possession of a ground floor flat where the court granted a possession order but suspended possession on terms that the Respondent (1) complied with his tenancy agreement and (2) obeyed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.540486