Landlords issuing proceedings for possession on ground of non-payment of rent – Judge granting possession order suspended on terms requiring tenant to pay arrears – Tenant not complying with terms – Tenant seeking suspension of warrant for possession – Landlords opposing suspension and seeking to adduce evidence of nuisance – Whether court entitled to consider matters other than those relied upon in possession proceedings
The defendant tenant was granted a secure tenancy of 571 Martin Street, Sheffield, on 30 August 1999. After the tenant moved in, complaints were made about her conduct and the keeping of animals at the property, and the claimant council were sent written warnings concerning those complaints in October, November and December 1999. In February 2000 the council issued a summons for possession of the property. Attached to the particulars of claim was a schedule of the tenant’s account history, which showed that no payments had been made. On 3 July 2000 the district judge made an order for possession suspended on terms that required the tenant either to make payment by 10 July 2000 or give up possession by 31 July 2000. The terms were not complied with and a request for a warrant of possession was issued by the council in August 2000.
The tenant then issued an application seeking suspension of the warrant for possession and indicating that her noncompliance was due to illness and depression. At the hearing of the application, the council adduced evidence of nuisance on the part of the defendant, and the tenant raised arguments concerning the discretion permitted to the court by section 85 of the Housing Act 1985. A preliminary hearing was ordered to decide whether matters other than the nonpayment of rent could be raised in the proceedings. The district judge ordered that arguments on matters other than rent were not to be raised upon an application to suspend a warrant for possession. The council appealed, contending that the discretion under section 85 was unfettered in regard to the arguments that could be raised, and that all relevant matters should be considered.
Held:The appeal was allowed.
1. Legislation did not confine the court’s discretion in the possession proceedings to the ground relied upon initially by a landlord when giving notice under section 83 of the Act. It would be unfair if matters that arose after the possession order, which made it clear that it would be wrong to suspend or stay the order for possession, could not be taken into account. However, there could be circumstances in which it would be wrong to allow a landlord to rely upon different matters when opposing a suspension order or a stay of execution.
2. In situations where a landlord might rely upon additional grounds, the landlord should give notice to the tenant that, although certain conduct was not being relied upon as a ground for seeking possession, if an application for a suspension or stay were to be made, it might ask the court to impose a condition to prevent such conduct from taking place thereafter. That would be particularly appropriate where the conduct feared was a nuisance. However, the condition should be sufficiently specified and clear so that the tenant would be in no doubt as to what would constitute a breach of the condition.
Bryan McGuire and Thomas Tyson (instructed by the solicitor to Sheffield City Council) appeared for the claimants; Kim Lewison QC and James Stark (instructed by Sheffield Law Centre) appeared for the defendant.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
