Assured tenancies — Possession proceedings — Rent arrears — Ground 8 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to Housing Act 1988 — Whether permissible to grant adjournment for purpose of enabling tenants to reduce arrears below ground 8 threshold and so defeat possession claim — Adjournment refused — Appeals dismissed
In each of the joined appeals, the appellant was the tenant of the respondent housing association under an assured tenancy. The appellants had fallen into arrears with the rent, and the respondents brought possession proceedings. Both at the date of service of the notices of proceedings and at the date of the hearings, the arrears extended beyond eight weeks, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the mandatory ground for possession in ground 8 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988.
In each case, the appellants applied for an adjournment of the hearing. They all argued that they should be given time to obtain the money to meet the arrears, or to bring them below the ground 8 threshold, so enabling them to defeat the possession claims on that ground. They all claimed that their inability to pay the rent had been caused by maladministration or other unjustified failures by the authorities to pay housing benefit. In each case, the judge refused to grant an adjournment on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to do so, or that, if such jurisdiction existed, it would be wrong to exercise it.
Although section 9(1) of the 1988 Act gave the courts power to adjourn possession proceedings for such periods as they thought fit, subsection (6) disapplied that provision where the court was satisfied that the landlord was entitled to possession on any of the grounds in Part 1 of Schedule 2, including ground 8. On the appeal, issues arose as to whether there was a power to adjourn either before or after the court was satisfied that the landlord was entitled to possession.
Held: The appeals were dismissed.
The court could not be satisfied that the landlord had been entitled to possession before the hearing date because it was a condition of entitlement under ground 8 that at least eight weeks’ rent remained unpaid at that date. The power to adjourn before the court was satisfied of the entitlement to possession had not been abrogated by the 1988 Act. However, it should not be exercised for the purpose of enabling a tenant to reduce arrears below the ground 8 threshold save in exceptional circumstances. To do so would involve granting an adjournment on the basis that the law, when applied to the facts that existed at the hearing date, would produce an injustice that might be overcome if applied to different future facts. Such an adjournment was not legitimate, since it was designed to achieve a result that the law pertaining at the date of the hearing did not permit. The situation was analogous to adjournments enabling a party to take advantage of a future change in the law: R v Walsall Justices, ex parte W (a minor) [1990] 1 QB 253 applied. Exceptional circumstances might arise where the refusal of an adjournment would be considered extremely unjust by any fair-minded person. The fact that the arrears were attributable to maladministration on the part of the housing authority was not an exceptional circumstance.
Once the court had expressed the conclusion that it was satisfied that the landlord was entitled to possession, there was no power to grant an adjournment in any circumstances. The court would not be “satisfied” within the meaning of the section until the judge had given a judgment and effect had been given to that judgment in a perfected order of the court. Once the order had been drawn up, the judge had no remaining function.
Jan Luba QC and James Stark (instructed by Platt Halpern) appeared for the first to third appellants; Michael Supperstone QC and Zia Nabi (instructed by Tyrer Roxburgh & Co) appeared for the fourth appellant; Paul Chaisty QC and Geraint Wheatley (instructed by Cobbetts) appeared for the respondent in the first to third cases; George Laurence QC and Zia Bhaloo (instructed by Trowers & Hamlins) appeared for the respondent in the fourth case.
Sally Dobson, barrister
