Lambeth London Borough Council v Hughes

Oppression in the execution of a possession warrant is fact-sensitive and is not confined to misconduct by the landlord. It may arise from a combination of the landlord’s communications, court-office conduct and procedural failures which effectively deprives a tenant of the opportunity to apply for a stay or suspension under Housing Act 1985, section 85(2).

A landlord’s communication may be oppressive where it suggests that eviction can be prevented only by paying the arrears in full and gives no indication of the right to apply to the court. Misleading information from court staff and inadequate warning may contribute to the oppression. Where the application is made promptly, the appropriate remedy may be to set aside execution and remit the question of any stay or suspension to the county court.

The appellant was a secure tenant of premises let by the respondent local authority. His possession order had been suspended on terms, but the terms were breached and a warrant for possession was issued.

The council sent a letter stating that eviction could be stopped only by paying all rent arrears. The tenant was not told about the power under section 85(2) of the Housing Act 1985 to seek a stay or suspension. When he contacted the county court, he was incorrectly told that no warrant had been issued and was advised to await a bailiff’s warning letter. That letter arrived on the day fixed for eviction.

After eviction, the tenant promptly applied to set aside execution for oppression and abuse of process. The county court dismissed the application. The central issue was whether the combined conduct of the council, court staff and the warning procedure had deprived him of a fair opportunity to apply for relief.

1. Appeal allowed. The execution of the warrant was set aside. The case was remitted to the county court, with directions that the tenant apply within seven days for a stay or suspension of enforcement. Costs were awarded here and below.
2. Oppression in the execution of a warrant is not limited to the conduct of the landlord. The categories are not closed, and the court may intervene where its procedures have been used unfairly so as to oppress a party. Conduct by court staff may therefore be relevant.
3. The council’s letter conveyed that payment in full of the arrears was the only way to prevent eviction. The housing officer adopted the same uncompromising position. Telling the tenant to obtain legal advice did not cure the failure to indicate that an application could be made under section 85(2) of the Housing Act 1985.
4. The court office gave inaccurate information that no warrant had been issued and advised the tenant to await the bailiff’s warning letter. The warning was dispatched too late to provide the stated period for an application. These matters, considered cumulatively, deprived the tenant of the opportunity to apply for a stay or suspension and amounted to oppression.
5. The question whether relief under section 85(2) would ultimately have been granted was for the county court. The tenant’s poor payment history did not justify refusing relief at the appellate stage, particularly because he applied immediately after eviction. The proper course was to restore the position that would have existed had he known of the available procedure.
6. Arden J added that the ingredients of oppression had not been exhaustively defined and drew attention to the procedural difficulties arising from the differing county court and High Court rules.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Lambeth County Court allowed. The county court’s dismissal of the application was reversed, execution of the warrant was set aside, and the matter was remitted.
• Lambeth County Court: His Honour Judge Welchman dismissed the tenant’s application to set aside execution and ordered costs on 1 November 1999.