Local authority – Social housing – Respondent tenant holding assured tenancy of appellant’s property – Respondent having conviction for possessing drugs – Respondent falling into rent arrears – Appellant seeking order for possession – Judge refusing to grant possession order as being unreasonable – Whether judge erring in law in concluding that grant of possession order not reasonable – Appeal dismissed
The appellant was a registered social landlord. It sought an order for possession of one of its properties, which was occupied by the respondent tenant under an assured tenancy agreement from 15 May 2005. In 2007, the respondent was convicted of possession of a class A drug, after pleading guilty to the offence on the basis that she had been asked to keep the drugs for her son. She also pleaded guilty to possession of a class C drug. The respondent fell into rent arrears totalling £2,246.71.
The appellant claimed possession pursuant to grounds 10, 12 and 14 of Part II in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. Pursuant to section 7(4) of the 1988 Act, proof of any one of those grounds enabled the court to make a possession order if it considered it reasonable to do so. Ground 10 related to arrears of rent; ground 12 to breach or non-performance of any other obligation under the tenancy; and ground 14 to, inter alia, a conviction of using the house for illegal purposes or to an arrestable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the house.
The judge dismissed the claim under grounds 12 and 14 and adjourned the claim based upon ground 10 to a later date, when the respondent was expected to make realistic proposals for the payment of the arrears. The appellant challenged the judge’s dismissal of its claim for possession under grounds 12 and 14, contending that, on the facts, the judge had been wrong to conclude that it was unreasonable to make an order for possession.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The judge was entitled to take the view that, on the facts of the case, the smoking of cannabis by the respondent was insufficient to make it reasonable for a possession order to be made.
The question of whether it was reasonable to make an order was a matter of evaluating the facts. Where a conclusion of a question of fact involved evaluating all the relevant evidence on a particular issue, the appellate court would not interfere with the evaluation unless it was clearly wrong: Cresswell v Hodgson [1951] 2 KB 92 considered.
In the instant case, the respondent’s plea was that the possession of cocaine was not for her personal use, but arose because her son had left the substance in her flat without her permission. The court had thus concluded that there was no basis for treating her as a supplier or user of that substance.
Actions for possession were serious and regard had to be had to the facts of the particular case. The judge had paid careful attention to the particular facts and weighed them up meticulously. On the particular facts of the case and as it was presented to him, the judge had been entitled to deal with the respondent’s convictions as he had and to hold that the respondent’s breaches of her tenancy agreement were not such as to make it unreasonable to decline to make a possession order: Bristol City Council v Mousah (1998) 30 HLR 32 and Stonebridge Housing Action Trust v Gabbidon [2002] EWHC 2091 (Ch) considered.
Mark Treneer (instructed by Trowers & Hamlins, of Exeter) appeared for the appellant; Russell James (instructed by Brewer Harding & Rowe, of Devon) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
