London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Root

When considering whether it is reasonable to make a possession order on the nuisance ground, Housing Act 1988, section 9A requires the court to consider the impact on other people, any continuing effect, and the likely effect if conduct is repeated. An anti-social behaviour order does not automatically require suspension. The court may weigh the seriousness and history of the nuisance, continuing risk, the tenant’s own breaches, and post-event conduct. An appellate court should not interfere where the judge applied the correct statutory approach and reached a conclusion supported by the evidence, even if the reasons could have been fuller.

Lorraine Root, an assured tenant of London & Quadrant Housing Trust, appealed against an absolute possession order made by Southend County Court on 17 September 2004. The claim relied on alleged breaches of tenancy and nuisance under paragraphs 12 and 14 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. The county court found serious anti-social conduct by Root’s partner, continuing property-condition breaches, and refusal of landlord access. An anti-social behaviour order had also been made against the partner. The appeal was confined to whether the possession order should have been suspended in light of that order and the partner’s departure. The central issue was whether the judge had correctly assessed reasonableness and the continuing effects of the nuisance.

Lord Justice Brooke delivered the leading judgment. Lord Justice Longmore agreed that the appeal should be dismissed.

1. Statutory factors. Section 9A of the Housing Act 1988, brought into force by section 16(2) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, imposed a positive requirement to consider the effect of nuisance or annoyance on persons other than the tenant, its likely continuing effect, and the likely effect if the conduct were repeated. The judge had expressly considered the provision.
2. Effect of the anti-social behaviour order. The existence and continuation of an anti-social behaviour order against the principal offender did not make suspension mandatory. The judge was entitled to consider the seriousness and duration of the past conduct, the continuing fear of neighbours and staff, the partner’s continuing proximity, and the absence of a clear break with the earlier behaviour. The approach in Lambeth Borough Council v Howard 93 HLR 626, concerning the continuing shadow of past conduct, was considered.
3. Tenant’s own conduct. Although Root had not personally caused all the nuisance and had herself suffered violence, the court could consider her continuing refusal to permit inspection, failure to remedy the property’s condition, denial of the complaints, and breakdown of relations with the landlord. Those matters were relevant to whether suspension was appropriate.
4. Appellate review. The county court judge directed himself correctly, considered the statutory factors, and reached a conclusion supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeal would not interfere merely because the reasons could have been expressed in greater detail.

The appeal was dismissed. The possession order took effect, the stay was lifted, and costs were awarded on standard terms against the legally aided appellant, subject to legal aid assessment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeal against the absolute possession order was dismissed. The stay was lifted and costs were ordered on standard terms against the legally aided appellant, subject to legal aid assessment.
2. Southend County Court. His Honour Judge Yelton made an absolute possession order on 17 September 2004 in respect of the assured tenancy.