The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act received Royal Assent on 13 March 2014 and it is anticipated that it will come into force in the Autumn of 2014. The Act represents the largest overhaul of the ASB tools available to social landlords in many years.
The ASBO is being abolished and there are various tidying up provisions to closure orders. Some of the biggest changes that will be implemented however are the new mandatory ground for possession and the re-styled Injunction “to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance” (“the IPNA”).
IPNA - Practical implications of the changes
The test in relation to residential accommodation of any tenure is ‘nuisance and annoyance’. However the test generally not re residential property will be the old ASBO test – behaviour that has caused ‘harassment, alarm or distress’.
A landlord or the tenant subject to an IPNA can make an application to vary the Order – for example to include an additional prohibition or to attach a power of arrest – or to have it discharged. However, if such an application is made and dismissed by the Court, no further application can be made without the consent of a Judge or the agreement of the other party.
In practical terms, this consideration should form part of a risk assessment for officers considering making such an application. The strength of evidence must be assessed as well as the likelihood of witnesses giving evidence and attending Court.
The new mandatory ground for possession
Ground 7A allows for a mandatory Possession Order to be made if a tenant or a person residing in or visiting the property has been convicted of:
or has breached an IPNA or the property is subject to a closure order.
Internal Review
If as a Local Authority you already use Ground 8 mandatory possession ground for arrears, you can adopt the same review procedure for Ground 7A. Your policies and procedures will need to be amended accordingly. Proportionality and Public Law challenges are still frequently being raised by tenant advisors and ensuring you have a clean paper trail in relation to the decision to rely on a mandatory ground is always needed in Court. Evidencing the fact that clear policies and procedures are firstly, in place and secondly, being followed will be enormously helpful in fighting off such challenges.
You may wish to consider developing a closer working relationship with departments, such as Environmental Health teams. In noise nuisance cases for example, it is almost always going to be prudent to make a referral to the Environmental Health team so that sound recordings can be taken and, potentially, a Noise Abatement Notice served. If there is subsequently a conviction for breach, this gives the landlord a mandatory ground for possession. Undertaking the necessary actions and investigations in respect of noise nuisance cases may be a lesser expense than using the alternative discretionary ASB possession route
Undertakings
When currently considering an application for an injunction, landlords will often accept an undertaking from the tenant by way of settlement of proceedings, especially if a power of arrest were not going to be available in any event. However, under the Act, a breach of an undertaking will not give rise to the mandatory ground for possession; there must be a breach of an IPNA. This may be an additional consideration when looking at whether to accept an undertaking in future.
It follows that breaches of IPNAs may in future be pursued by landlords even if the prospect of a custodial sentence is slim. During the committal hearing, the Judge will make a finding of fact in relation to the breach of the Injunction and this can then be relied on to prove the mandatory ground for possession.
Although proportionality challenges continue, the case law is more and more in favour of the Local Authorities and Registered Providers and even if such arguments are raised, the process to obtain a mandatory Possession Order should still be significantly quicker and cheaper than a full ASB trial.
Join us for our ASB Reforms Update in June 2014.
Contact our housing litigation team for further updates on the Bill and training on its new provisions in due course via 0121 212 7400.
It is important to remember that when it comes to selling services, you must deliver on your promises.
Under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 1974, organisations are obligated to avoid public health and safety risks through the conduct of their business.
How does a media-savvy employer ensure a season of festive cheer but without mishap, damage to their reputation or harassment and bullying claims?
Providers need to be alive to the risk of contractors becoming insolvent and how to limit the resulting inevitable disruption.
Housing associations must continue to deliver core functions effectively and compliantly notwithstanding the uncertainty over the standards to which you will be held in the future.
Over the last few years the meaning of “asset management” has changed from being all about repairs to understanding that assets might not stay in an organisation forever.
The Grenfell Tower tragedy has understandably prompted a fundamental reconsideration of how building safety is approached for High-Rise Residential Buildings.
Results from the latest three-yearly valuation of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) are starting to trickle through.
The potential for Brexit with or without a deal causes uncertainty, and credit rating agencies do not like uncertainty.
Let’s face it, Wills are underappreciated and often overlooked. In fact, around 54% of the British public do not have one!
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.