A 19-year-old Bracknell woman is challenging a government initiative for new tenancies, claiming that it infringes tenants’ rights. Her claim has been mounted as a test case even though she is no longer threatened with eviction under the rules.
Vicki Johns is asking the High Court to rule that the regime of “introductory tenancies” introduced by the 1996 Housing Act breaches the recently introduced Human Rights Act provisions and should be scrapped.
Under the scheme, local authorities have the option to treat all new tenants as “introductory tenants” for one year, and grant them fewer rights than secure tenants.
Although introductory tenants have the same rights in relation to property repairs, consultation on house management matters and the ability to assign their interest to others, they are not entitled to other rights enjoyed by secure tenants, including the right to take lodgers or buy or improve the property.
Introductory tenants become full secure tenants once the year is up. Although this has now happened to Ms Johns, she claims that the way that Bracknell Forest Borough Council, which adopted the scheme, treated her during eviction proceedings breached her human rights to respect for her home and to a fair hearing.
In May this year, the council sought to evict Ms Johns, who is described as “vulnerable” in papers before the court, from her one-bedroom flat in Enidwood House, High Street, Bracknell. She was served with a notice of possession alleging nuisance, although she had never received any complaints.
The allegation related to a number of incidents involving people trying to recover a debt from an ex-boyfriend of Ms Johns, including threats to “trash” the flat and one occasion when her door was kicked in. Ms Johns managed to ward off the possession proceedings, and has now gained secure tenancy rights.
However, she still claims that the rules covering the process of serving possession orders on introductory tenants do not involve a determination of important issues by an independent and impartial tribunal.
She argues that if a local authority issues proceedings for possession and serves the appropriate 14-day notice, a county court has no discretion other than to make an order for possession. She says that a tenant seeking to challenge such an order would have to prove “unreasonableness verging on absurdity”.
Robert Latham, counsel for Ms Johns, argued that the procedures used by the council breached the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) now enshrined in our law by the Human Rights Act 1988.
He said: “It is submitted that the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s rights by the introductory tenancy scheme as operated by the defendant cannot be justified as necessary or proportional. There are a range of measures to deal with anti-social behaviour.”
He claimed that notices of possession were being served on introductory tenants not as a last resort but as an alternative to the other measures
Timothy Straker QC, counsel for the local authority, argued that the aim of the introductory tenancy policy was to enable the council to deal with anti-social behaviour caused by their tenants, including nuisance and non-payment of rent.
“The council needs to be able to tackle such problem behaviour quickly and efficiently in order to safeguard the well-being of all its tenants and to ensure the proper use of its resources and fulfilment of its duties,” he said.
The hearing continues.
R v Bracknell Forest Borough Council, ex parte Johns Queen’s Bench Division (Longmore J) 18 December 2000.
Robert Latham and Martin Westgate (instructed by Dexter Montague & Partners, of Reading) appeared on behalf of the applicant; Timothy Straker QC and Sarah-Jane Davies (instructed by the solicitor to Bracknell Forest Borough Council) appeared on behalf of the respondents.
PLS News 20/12/00
