Accent Peerless Ltd v Kingsdon & Anor

Under the Housing Act 1988, a possession order for nuisance or annoyance requires consideration of whether possession is reasonable. The court must assess the statutory effects on others, all other relevant circumstances and the likelihood of continuation or repetition. A reduction in incidents does not necessarily show that the conduct has ceased or remove the risk of recurrence. An immediate rather than suspended order may be justified where the tenant’s underlying attitude or condition remains unchanged. An appellate court should intervene only for a manifest error of principle, failure to consider a relevant matter or consideration of an irrelevant matter. Particular respect is due to a trial judge who has heard extensive evidence and evaluated competing interests.

Accent Peerless obtained an immediate possession order against two tenants of an assured weekly periodic tenancy. The order followed findings that the tenants had caused nuisance and annoyance to neighbours through persistent complaints, false allegations, unwanted communications and related conduct. Both tenants had mental disabilities.

The appeal concerned whether the alleged reduction in incidents should have affected the reasonableness of making a possession order, and whether the order should have been suspended in view of the prospects of future recurrence. The Court of Appeal considered whether the county court judge had addressed those matters and applied the appropriate appellate standard.

Appeal dismissed. The immediate possession order was upheld.

1. Statutory framework. Under the Housing Act 1988, possession of an assured tenancy required an established ground in Part II of Schedule 2. Ground 14 covered conduct causing or likely to cause nuisance or annoyance. Even where the ground was established, the court retained a discretion to order possession only if it considered that course reasonable. Section 9(a) required consideration of the effects on other persons, any continuing effects and the likely effects of repetition. The statutory matters were not exhaustive, and the likelihood of continuation was significant.
2. Alleged abatement. The county court judge had considered the reduction in complaints. His judgment, read as a whole, showed that he assessed the historical pattern, the tenants’ mental condition, their continuing subjective intolerance and the prospects of future misconduct. The judge was entitled to conclude that some abatement did not mean that the conduct had ceased or that similar or different conduct was unlikely. The effect on the neighbours remained substantial and continuous.
3. Appellate review. The reasonableness of possession was an evaluative decision deserving particular respect. The Court of Appeal would intervene only for a manifest error of principle, failure to consider a relevant matter or consideration of an irrelevant matter. The judge had heard extensive evidence and had considered the competing interests, including vulnerability, homelessness, Article 8 rights and the Disability Discrimination Act. No such error was shown.
4. Immediate order. The likelihood of recurrence was important, although not necessarily decisive, when deciding between an immediate and suspended order. The judge was entitled to rely on the absence of any real prospect of successful treatment or change in attitude. The possibility of recurrence therefore justified an immediate order. The appeal accordingly failed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2007] EWCA Civ 1314. The appeal was dismissed.
• Aldershot and Farnham County Court — HHJ Milligan made an immediate possession order on 14 December 2006 in respect of the assured tenancy.