Local authority – Jurisdiction – Anti-social behaviour injunction (ASBI) – Respondent local authority obtaining possession order and ASBI following appellant’s acts of harassment and criminal damage – Appellant continuing to breach ASBI following eviction – Appellant appealing against grant of further ASBIs – Whether court having jurisdiction to grant ASBI in respect of former tenant – Appeal dismissed
The appellant had been a secure tenant of the respondent local authority at premises in a cul-de-sac (the Green), in the village of Warnborough for 48 years until he was evicted in July 2006, because he abused alcohol and he was unable to refrain from making a nuisance of himself when drunk. He was also in arrears with his rent.
A suspended possession order which had been granted in July 2005 was lifted in June 2006, following acts of criminal damage by the appellant. At the same time, the county court granted an anti-social behaviour injunction (ASBI) for a year prohibiting the appellant from engaging in such behaviour or entering the Green.
He failed to comply with the ASBI and was committed to prison for breach. A second ASBI was imposed for a further year. Prior to the expiry of the second ASBI, the appellant returned to the Green on several occasions, which gave rise to further acts of harassment and damage against his former neighbours and their property. This led to the granting of a third ASBI.
The appellant appealed. He contended that the court had no jurisdiction to grant the third ASBI since his conduct was not “housing-related” within section 153A(1) of the Housing Act 1996 because it did not relate to or affect the housing management functions of the respondents as the relevant landlords. Neither he nor the main victims of his behaviour were the respondents’ tenants and the properties involved were not in the respondents’ ownership.
Thus, the question in issue was whether there was a sufficient connection between the respondents and the appellant as their ex-tenant in respect of his anti-social behaviour against victims in the neighbourhood where he used to live so as to justify, in jurisdictional terms, the respondents’ continuing pursuit of a further anti-social behaviour injunction (ASBI) against the appellant.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The apellant’s behaviour and his earlier conduct amounted to “housing-related conduct”, thereby justifying the making of the third ASBI.
It was clear from the history of the ASBI legislation that the court had a broad jurisdiction to grant an ASBI: Enfield London Borough Council v B (a minor) [2000] 1 WLR 2259, Nottingham City Council v Thames [2002] EWCA Civ 1098; [2003] HLR 14, and Manchester City Council v Lee [2003] EWCA Civ 1256; [2004] 1 WLR 349 considered.
Moreover, section 153A indicated that a relevant landlord had to preserve the peace in the neighbourhood of its residential property by seeking ASBIs to restrain anti-social behaviour. In the context of promoting well-being and keeping the peace between neighbours, the powers and functions of a local authority should not be artificially narrowed where the broad range of victims within the meaning of section 153A(3) were affected: Akumah v Hackney Borough Council [2005] UKHL 17; [2005] 1 WLR 985, R v Ealing Borough Council, ex parte Lewis (1992) 24 HLR 484, and Shelley v London County Council [1948] 1 KB 274 considered.
The respondents’ management functions embraced concern for their tenants and property in the Green in circumstances where a threat came from a former tenant as part of his continuing campaign against his neighbours, irrespective of whether these were the respondents’ tenants, owner-occupiers or even persons who worked in the area.
Nothing in the language of the respondents’ housing management functions as a local authority or in the modern version of section 153A led to the conclusion that the respondents were powerless to protect the appellant’s former neighbours; nor did the history and background of section 153A suggest that the modern statute had to be limited beyond its express wording or given a narrow interpretation.
Furthermore, the appellant’s conduct had to be viewed as whole and, in the instant case, the respondents’ housing management functions included a responsibility to their tenants and to owner-occupiers for the conduct of a former tenant.
Jan Luba QC and Yinka Adedeji (instructed by Shearer & Co, of Chippenham) appeared for the appellant; Andrew Arden QC and Andrew Dymond (instructed by the legal department of Swindon Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
