Elderly tenant taking over guardianship of two grandsons – Grandsons causing nuisance and annoyance to neighbours – Council obtaining suspended possession order – Whether possession order appropriate – Housing Act 1985, ground 2, Schedule 2 – Appeal against order dismissed
In October 1970 the appellant, an elderly woman, moved into 148 Church Road, Fratton, Portsmouth, a three-bedroomed property on a housing estate owned by the respondent council. She was initially a joint tenant of the property, but, in December 1982, after her husband died, the tenancy was transferred into her sole name. In 1987 the appellant took over the guardianship of her two grandsons.
During 1997 and 1998 various allegations were made by other residents as to vandalism and anti-social acts attributed to the grandsons. As a result, in November 1997, the council gave notice, under section 83 of the Housing Act 1985, claiming possession on grounds 1 and 2 of Schedule 2. The council subsequently commenced possession proceedings. In May 1999 the district judge found that there was an abundance of evidence that the two grandsons had caused nuisance and annoyance over a number of years and granted an order for possession, in respect of the appellant’s home, until April 2001. The order was suspended on the terms that the appellant comply with the terms and conditions of the tenancy, and that she and others who resided at, or visited, the property, did not cause nuisance and annoyance to others. The appellant’s appeal from that decision was dismissed.
The appellant appealed, contending that: (i) the judge had erred in his construction of ground 2 of Schedule 2 to the Act; (ii) requirements of section 83(2)(c) of the Act, as to the particular grounds relied upon for the possession order, had not been satisfied; and (iii) the order was unreasonable.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. There were sound policy reasons to include within the scope of ground 2 the situation where a tenant failed to prevent those residing with her, or visiting her, from causing nuisance or annoyance, even where the tenancy was in her sole name. However, a possession order would only be made when it was reasonable to do so, and the grounds required were satisfied: Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council v Simmonds (1996) 29 HLR 507, applied.
2. The requirements of section 83(2)(c) of the Act had been satisfied since it could be concluded that the appellant had “allowed” her grandsons to commit the relevant acts of nuisance and annoyance, within the terms of the notice, by failing to prevent their behaviour. In any event, the appellant had not been misled or prejudiced by the notice and moreover, had an amendment been necessary, the district judge would have granted the relevant permission: West Kent Housing Association Ltd v Davies (1999) 31 HLR 415, applied.
3. In all the circumstances, the district judge had been entitled to make the order. The situation was not unlike that which arose with a suspended sentence of imprisonment; a suspended possession order could have a salutary effect. Further, the length of the order could not be considered unreasonable.
Dr Paul McCormick (instructed by Anderton & Co, of Portsmouth) appeared for the appellant; Andrew Arden QC and Andrew Kinghorn (instructed by the solicitor to Portsmouth City Council) appeared for the respondents.
