Landlords granting postponed possession order in respect of rent arrears — Tenant breaching terms of tenancy in other respects — Whether court having jurisdiction to vary conditions of existing possession order — Appeal dismissed
The respondent council were granted a possession order against the appellant in respect of rent arrears. The possession order was postponed, under section 85(2)(b) of the Housing Act 1985, on various conditions, all of which related to the payment of the rent arrears. The tenant complied with those conditions, but breached other terms of the tenancy. The respondents applied to have the possession order varied to include, inter alia, a condition that the premises could not be used for any illegal activity, including the handling of stolen goods, and to have the postponed order replaced by an absolute order of immediate effect. The appellant argued that the court had no power to amend or revoke the order, since its conditions had not been breached, and that the only route open to the landlords was to apply for a fresh possession order.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Where such an order was still running, liberty to apply to the court was implicit. In any event, either the landlords or the tenant could apply to have the instalments of rent varied on the order, since, under section 85(2) of the Housing Act 1985, it was clear that the order was already susceptible to variation on new grounds of application.
In exercising its discretion, the court should ensure that the tenant was not taken by surprise, so a local authority could not rely upon extraneous matters not pleaded to vary the order.
Jan Luba QC and James Stark (instructed by Platt Halpern, of Manchester) appeared for the appellant; Andrew Arden QC and Jonathan Manning (instructed by the solicitor to Manchester City Council) appeared for the respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
