Places for People Homes Ltd v Maddocks

On a renewed application for permission to appeal against a possession decision, the Court of Appeal emphasised appellate restraint. A first-instance judge who heard the oral evidence is entitled to make findings of fact and an evaluative judgment on reasonableness. Permission should not be granted where proposed grounds merely seek to re-try those findings on paper or recast factual disagreements as points of law. In applying the statutory reasonableness requirement, the judge may assess established and admitted nuisance in the round. The fact that many allegations were unproved or trivial is not irrelevant to the proved conduct. A different view of the evidence, or a challenge to an inevitable costs order, does not itself provide a sufficient ground of appeal.

Places for People Homes Ltd v Maddocks concerned a social landlord’s application for possession against a secure tenant under the Housing Act 1985. Notice was served under section 83, relying on grounds 1 and 2 of Schedule 2, following allegations of nuisance and annoyance. The County Court rejected most of the allegations, found two noise incidents proved, and concluded that possession was not reasonable under section 84(2)(a), having regard to section 85A.

The landlord’s paper application for permission to appeal was refused. On oral renewal, the central issue was whether the alleged errors concerning factual findings, admitted noise, reasonableness, or costs gave the proposed appeal a real prospect of success.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice May concluded that the Recorder’s decision was principally one of fact and discretion and was not amenable to a successful appeal. Lord Justice Longmore agreed.
2. The Recorder had heard the critical oral evidence and had given a full, careful and reasoned judgment. The proposed grounds largely challenged the detail of his factual findings. Recasting those criticisms as points of law did not create a real prospect that the Court of Appeal would disturb them. An appellate court should not retry the case on paper or substitute its own assessment for that of the judge who saw the witnesses.
3. The statutory requirement in section 84(2)(a) of the Housing Act 1985 required an evaluative judgment about whether possession was reasonable. Section 85A required consideration of the effect of established nuisance or annoyance on others, including its possible continuation or repetition. The Recorder directed himself correctly and was entitled to consider the admitted noise, its likely repetition, and its effect on the neighbours.
4. The fact that numerous allegations were unproved or trivial was not irrelevant when assessing the admitted noise allegations. The Recorder was entitled to consider the evidence about noise in the round, rather than treating every allegation as independently proved. Complaints that he had preferred some witnesses, given insufficient weight to others, or reached a different conclusion about the level of noise amounted to challenges to fact and evaluation.
5. The argument that a postponed or suspended possession order should have been made also depended on substituting a different evaluative judgment. The costs challenge did not independently sustain an appeal, even if it might have been arguable at first instance. Permission was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On oral renewal of the application for permission to appeal, the application was refused: [2007] EWCA Civ 252.
• Bristol County Court: Mr Recorder Baldwin QC dismissed the claim for possession on 23 October 2006.