The Government first announced plans for a shared ownership right to buy in October 2019. At the time the sector raised concerns about the impact the plans would have on housing associations ability to borrow. An election and a pandemic later the Government announced, during the CIH Housing Festival last week, the return of the right to shared ownership as part of its Affordable Homes Programme (AHP).
Section 21 (7) of the Act states that:
“In deciding whether to grant an injunction under section 1, a court may take account of conduct occurring up to six months before the commencement day.”
The commencement day for Part 1 of the Act is 23 March 2015, so six months before this is 23 September 2014.
In Birmingham County Council v Pardoe, the High Court found that, as long as it was proved that the Defendant had engaged in anti-social behaviour after 23 September 2014, evidence of conduct prior to 23 September 2014 could still be taken into account when deciding whether or not it is just and convenient to grant an injunction. The Judgment can be found by clicking here.
As landlords will be aware, the Act requires the following two conditions to be met before an injunction can be granted:
- The court has to be satisfied that the Defendant had engaged, or threatened to engage, in anti-social behaviour; and
- It is just and convenient to grant an injunction.
The Birmingham County Council v Pardoe appeal revolved around the interpretation of s.21 (7) of the Act, which states that the court "may take account of conduct occurring up to six months before the commencement day". The Defendant argued that the court was therefore precluded from taking into account any conduct prior to 23 September 2014.
The facts were that the Claimant local authority issued a claim against the Defendants. It was alleged that the Defendants had engaged in anti-social behaviour over a number of years by targeting old or vulnerable people and charging them inflated amounts for unnecessary and sub-standard work. There were 49 allegations.
The Defendants applied to exclude 27 of the 49 allegations on the basis that they had taken place before 23 September 2014. The application was dismissed as limiting the conduct that could be considered would lead to “absurd results”.
In relation to the two conditions that had to be met before an injunction was granted, it was concluded that conduct prior to 23 September 2014 could not be considered for the purposes of satisfying the court that the Defendant had engaged, or threatened to engage, in anti-social behaviour (condition 1). However, the conduct could be considered for the purposes of satisfying the court that it was just and convenient to grant an injunction (condition 2). The Defendant then appealed and the appeal was dismissed.
The Judge had been correct to hold that the literal interpretation of section 21 (7) of the Act would cause absurd results. The Judge had been wrong, however, to limit the consideration of conduct prior to 23 September 2014 to the second condition.
Evidence prior to 23 September 2014 can be considered both for the purposes of satisfying the court that the Defendant had engaged, or threatened to engage, in anti-social behaviour (condition 1) and for the purposes of satisfying the court that it was just and convenient to grant an injunction (condition 2). There must, however, be some conduct after 23 September 2014 for the court to be able to make an order.
Evidence prior to 23 September 2014 could be particularly relevant in relation to condition 1 to answer a defence of innocent error or to show similar previous conduct.
- Landlords do not have to limit possible anti-social behaviour relied upon in an injunction to conduct occurring after 23 September 2014 but must include some conduct after that date.
- Older conduct may be particularly useful if it shows a pattern of behaviour or contradicts a Defendant’s explanation.
- Obviously the earlier the incident, the less useful or relevant it may be.
For more information
Please contact Helen Tucker or any member of the Housing Litigation team on 0121 212 7400.
Two final pieces of the possession jigsaw have been published on 15 September 2020. Mr Justice Knowles’ working group on possession proceedings has issued its guidance on the “overall arrangements” for possession proceedings.
One change proposed by the Building Safety Bill is the introduction of a duty holder regime, which will see statutory responsibility for the safety of higher risk buildings placed on key individuals
Throughout this pandemic, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been publishing various “Statements on Coronavirus” (Statements) which provide guidance on consumer rights during this time.
A recent increase in COVID-19 cases in the UK means new measures are being put in place in an effort to reduce the risk of a second wave. Whilst the impact of COVID-19 continues to be felt, it is important to remain focused on the sector’s road to recovery.
Sometimes half an hour at a conference gives you the reality that has been staring you in the face all along. That was my experience watching “Change is on the Horizon”
Following our recent e-briefing on Possession Notices, Helen Tucker and Emilie Pownall from our housing litigation team discuss the impact of the changes on social landlords.
Not only has the possession stay been extended until 20 September, the notice periods to be given to tenants has been extended in certain circumstances with some important exceptions.
The Court has confirmed that a party cannot withhold its consent in order to re-write the original bargain.
Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, building safety continues to be a key concern for social housing providers and their residents.
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.