London Borough Of Lambeth v Howard

A legal threat to evict a secure tenant from the tenant’s home ordinarily engages article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The statutory requirement that a possession order be reasonable must therefore be interpreted compatibly with the Convention.

The court must determine whether eviction pursues a legitimate aim, responds to a pressing social need and is proportionate. An outright order may be reasonable and necessary where past harassment has caused such lasting fear that the perpetrator’s return would continue to harm neighbouring victims, even if no further harassment were likely. The court must balance the tenant’s interest in retaining a secure home against the victims’ rights to freedom from fear and to live in peace.

A secure tenant persistently harassed a neighbouring tenant and her daughter. The conduct included unwanted approaches, following the neighbour, attempting to enter her flat and making unfounded allegations to public authorities. He was convicted of harassment and excluded from the premises by a restraining order.

The Central London County Court made an outright possession order under section 84 and Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. It found that the statutory grounds were established and that neither undertakings nor a suspended order would adequately protect the neighbours.

The tenant appealed, contending principally that his comparatively good behaviour while on bail showed that suspension would suffice. The central issue was whether immediate eviction was reasonable under domestic law and necessary and proportionate under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Sedley LJ delivered the leading judgment. Hale LJ gave additional reasons, and Thorpe LJ agreed that the county court judge’s balancing exercise was sufficient.

2. A legal threat to a secure home ordinarily engages article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Eviction represents a prima facie interference with the respect and integrity due to the home. The question is whether that interference is justified under article 8(2).

3. Where the landlord is a public authority, justification arises directly under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 3 also requires the statutory concept of reasonableness to be given a Convention-compliant meaning so far as possible. The established domestic assessment of whether an outright, suspended or no possession order is reasonable is not materially altered, but proportionality provides a methodical and transparent framework for that assessment.

4. Necessity is a relative threshold, not an absolute requirement that eviction be indispensable. The reasons must be relevant and sufficient, the interference must correspond to a pressing social need, and the means adopted must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued: Johns and McLellan v Bracknell Forest District Council (unreported, 21 December 2000) applied.

5. Per Sedley LJ, the tenant’s restraint while on bail indicated that he might behave properly when faced with serious and immediate consequences. It did not outweigh the lasting fear and tension his return would cause. Past harassment may reach a point where its effects cannot be undone. Immediate eviction was necessary even if no further harassment occurred because nothing less would protect the neighbour and her daughter from those continuing effects.

6. Per Hale LJ, the tenant’s continuing denial of wrongdoing and continued allegations against the neighbour were highly relevant to future risk. Once the county court judge was entitled to find that the risk was too serious to take, immediate eviction was the only reasonable, necessary and proportionate conclusion. The article 6 complaint was misconceived because the tenant had received an eminently fair hearing.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The tenant’s appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court upheld the outright possession order and held that it was reasonable, necessary and proportionate.

2. Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Medawar QC found the statutory possession grounds proved and made an outright possession order. He declined to suspend it because the risk and continuing impact upon the neighbouring tenant and her daughter were too serious.