Local authority adopting scheme of introductory tenancies – Tenant having fewer rights for period of 12 months – Claimants introductory tenants – Whether scheme incompatible with Articles 6 and 8 of European Convention on Human Rights – Claim dismissed
Part V of the Housing Act 1996 introduced a new regime of introductory tenancies, designed to help deal with antisocial behaviour. Bracknell Forest District Council (the defendants) elected to adopt the scheme, under which an introductory tenant had no security of tenure during the first 12 months. After that time, the tenancy became a secure tenancy unless the landlord gained possession. Local authority landlords could evict an introductory tenant without establishing grounds for possession, although, prior to issuing possession proceedings, they were obliged to serve a notice of proceedings for possession upon the tenant. The tenant was then entitled to request a review of the decision which would be heard by a panel. The county court therefore had no discretion as to whether an order for possession should be made, provided that the appropriate notice of proceedings had been served, and any challenge to the decision to evict, and to the review process, was accordingly, to be made by way of judicial review.
The claimants, who were introductory tenants under the scheme, sought a declaration that it was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). They submitted that the scheme was inconsistent with Article 6(1) because: (i) a review panel did not meet the requirements of fairness, nor did it meet the requirements of independence and impartiality; and (ii) there was no appeal to a court which complied with Article 6(1). The claimants contended that judicial review was insufficient to render the scheme compatible with the Convention as the administrative court was precluded from having “full jurisdiction”. The claimants also contended that Article 8 of the Convention was engaged, as such possession proceedings interfered with the claimants’ right to respect for their home. It was submitted that the restrictions imposed upon their rights by such a scheme could not be justified as necessary or proportionate.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
1. The decision to continue possession proceedings, after a review had taken place, did affect the determination of the claimants’ civil rights and obligations. Accordingly, Article 6 was engaged. However, the way in which a review was to proceed was a matter for the reviewing officer, whose decision was amenable to judicial review. The High Court could remit a matter for a fresh review to be made if necessary and could request that a different person hear the review. The scope of judicial review was sufficient to overcome any impartiality. There was a review by a court of “full jurisdiction” and the claim as to incompatibility with Article 6 failed: Bryan v United Kingdom A/335-A [1996] 2 EGLR 123 considered.
2. The scheme of introductory tenancies did interfere with the Article 8 right, but the evidence revealed that such an interference corresponded to a pressing social need. Other methods of controlling antisocial behaviour, suggested by the claimants, were liable to be even more disproportionate. The scheme was not incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention. Neither the enactment of the scheme, nor the adoption of it by a local authority, was incompatible with the Convention.
Robert Latham and Martin Westgate (instructed by Dexter Montague & Partners, of Reading) appeared for the claimants; Timothy Straker QC and Sarah-Jane Davies (instructed by the solicitor to Bracknell Forest Borough Council) appeared for the defendants; Philip Sales (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, an interested party.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
