Tenant falling into arrears – Local authority landlords obtaining possession order suspended upon terms – Tenant failing to comply with terms – Landlords obtaining warrant for possession without notice to tenant – Tenant evicted – Tenant refused permission to re-enter premises – Tenant appealing – Whether procedure followed by landlords breaching European Convention on Human Rights – Appeal dismissed
In 1992 and 1996, the defendant local authority landlords served a notice seeking possession, for rent arrears, under section 82 of the Housing Act 1985, upon the claimant tenant of a property in South East London. The parties agreed a rate of repayment of the arrears and the matter was adjourned. However problems arose, and the matter was restored for hearing.
In June 1998, an order for possession was granted, but then suspended on the terms that the tenant paid an additional £10 per week. However, problems arose again, and in February 1999 the landlords applied for, and obtained, a warrant for possession. They subsequently advised the tenant, by letter, that he would be evicted in March 1999. The tenant applied to the court for a stay of eviction. The tenant failed to attend the subsequent hearing, and the application was dismissed. The arrears totalled £4,343. In July 1999 the tenant made a further application to stay the eviction, which resulted in an order, of August 1999, that the warrant be suspended upon payment of current rent, plus £18 towards arrears with costs to be added to this.
In September 2000 payment of housing benefit reduced the arrears, but again the tenant failed to maintain his payments. In December 2000 the landlords, using form N325, and without notice to the tenant, applied to the court to issue a fresh warrant of possession. The balance due was £4,042. The landlords’ solicitor certified that the tenant had not complied with the terms of the previous order, and the warrant was issued. The landlords wrote to the tenant informing him of their application to Lambeth County Court to have him evicted. Lambeth County Court also wrote to the tenant giving him notice of eviction. On 31 January 2001 the tenant was evicted. On the same day the tenant sought an order that he be permitted to re-enter. The application was refused. The tenant appealed against that refusal. It was submitted that although the local authority had followed the normal procedures, and had not contravened any country court rules, nevertheless, their procedure, and the procedures of the court, should have been adjusted to take account of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was submitted that, in particular, the issue of the warrant of possession, in December 2000, should have been a judicial as opposed to an administrative act, of which the tenant should have had formal notice, so that he could have had the opportunity to make representations as to why the warrant should not have been issued.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. Although the possession proceedings, as a whole, determined the tenant’s civil rights and obligations, falling within the scope of Article 6, thereby entitling the tenant to “a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal”, the tenant had had such a hearing when the order for possession had been made. Furthermore, he was entitled to a further hearing up to the moment of eviction, and to a limited extent thereafter. The issue of a warrant for possession in December 2000, was simply a step that had to be taken to give effect to the order for possession. It had neither altered the legal status of the tenant, nor made any decision of any kind in relation to his rights and therefore did not require a further hearing.
2. Although the possession proceedings against the appellant had interfered with his rights, in respect of his home within the meaning of Article 8(1), they were in accordance with the law and necessary, in that they pursued a legitimate objective of eviction for non-payment of rent. Although the local authority and the court were under a duty to ensure that each step taken towards eviction was proportionate, and that they could not legitimately cast upon the tenant the burden of alerting them if it might not be so, for the landlords to seek eviction could not be regarded as a disproportionate response, given that the tenant knew what was being done, and had the right to seek the assistance of the court under section 85.
3. In order to establish a claim under Article 14, an individual had to show that he had been discriminated against on the basis of “a personal characteristic by which persons or groups of persons are distinguishable from each other”. The landlords’ choice of forum for their possession action was not based upon any personal characteristic of the tenant capable of founding a claim for discrimination under Article 14. If there had been any discrimination, it could have been objectively justified. There were reasons for the county court rules and the rules of the Supreme Court to be different, even though further consideration would be given to the possibility of bringing them in line.
Robert Latham (instructed by Southwark Law Centre) appeared for the claimant; Patrick Routley (instructed by Southwark Legal Services) appeared for the defendants; Cecilia Ivimy (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the interested party.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
