A council tenant who faced eviction because of her teenage son’s anti-social behaviour has lost her attempt to prove that her human rights were violated.
The Court of Appeal rejected Elizabeth Gilboy’s argument that Liverpool City Council’s eviction process, in which a council officer has the final say in evicting tenants who are alleged to have become a nuisance to their neighbours, amounted to an “unfair trial” because cases were not decided by an “impartial and independent tribunal”.
In June 2006, Gilboy’s tenancy was “demoted” for 12 months by a county court judge following complaints of anti-social behaviour against her son.
A demoted tenancy is a one-year probationary council tenancy that is used by councils to take action against tenants who have been involved in anti-social behaviour.
Following further allegations against Gilboy’s son, the council issued a claim for possession.
In October 2007, Gilboy’s application for judicial review of that decision was rejected by the High Court, which ruled that she had received a fair trial under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Resisting her appeal against that determination, the council argued that a demoted tenancy was analogous to an introductory tenancy, which provides a trial period prior to a secure tenancy.
Accordingly, the council submitted that the appeal court was bound by the previous case of R (on the application of McLellan) v
Rejecting Gilboy’s appeal, Waller LJ held that the demoted tenancy scheme contained no distinguishing feature that would allow the reasoning in McLellan not to apply.
R (on the application of Gilboy) v
Jan Luba QC and Adam Fullwood (instructed by Jackson & Canter) appeared for the appellant; Edward Bartley
