In the recent case of Shane Barber –v- Croydon London Borough Council (heard in the Court of Appeal on the 11th February 2010) an ASB possession order was set aside because the Local Authority failed to follow its policy on vulnerable adults and consult specialist agencies about whether alternative remedies to possession would tackle the issue.
Mr Barber was a secure tenant of Croydon LBC and suffered from learning difficulties and a personality disorder. On one occasion he threatened, spat and kicked a caretaker. Possession proceedings were initiated. Croydon’s policy on anti-social behaviour recognised the need for its antisocial behaviour team to work in partnership with other internal and external statutory and voluntary agencies including the Social Services Department and Mental Health teams. In their policy “a vulnerable person” included somebody diagnosed with a mental illness or personality disorder. The policy went on to set out three categories of anti-social behaviour and the Local Authority took the decision that Mr Barber’s behaviour fell within the most severe category of anti-social behaviour. The policy then stated that legal action would “almost always take place”.
As part of the trial process a jointly instructed psychiatric report was prepared which concluded that Mr Barber’s disability was likely to have contributed to his behaviour and that his life would “descend into chaos” if he was evicted. Those representing Mr Barber further argued that the Local Authority had pressed ahead without consulting the integrated Mental Health Service or considering whether anything less than possession would solve the problem.
The Court of Appeal decided that Croydon’s decision to take possession was one which no housing authority, faced with the facts of this case, could reasonably have taken. The assault on the caretaker was serious and unacceptable, but the Local Authority’s policy on vulnerable people was to explore alternatives to possession which may prevent anti-social behaviour in the future. Consideration was given to the absence of any misbehaviour by Mr Barber before or after the incident in question.
Comment
This case clearly shows that it is important for all social landlords to carefully follow their policies and procedures and to treat possession as a last resort. Do policies require consultation with other agencies? If so, detailed notes should be kept as to which agencies were consulted and their response and what other options were explored.
Housing Associations should also take note of this case as, following the Weaver decision, the same type of defences may well be raised, and judicial review proceedings or public law style defences in County Court proceedings brought against social landlords in similar circumstances.
For more information please contact Jane Plant , telephone 0121 212 7455, email
jane.plant@anthonycollins.com