CDS Housing v Bellis

When a tenant has made a property highly dangerous through conduct arising from mental illness, an immediate possession order may be justified where a real risk of repetition remains. The question is not simply whether repetition is more likely than not. The court must ask whether it is satisfied that the risk has been reduced so that it is no longer tangible. The seriousness of the possible consequences is relevant to that assessment. Although the court must address the statutory stages, including reasonableness and possible suspension or postponement, those stages may lead to the same answer where they depend on the continuing risk. A proposed support and medication regime will not suffice unless the evidence removes the real risk.

The tenant appealed from a possession order made by His Honour Judge Trigger in the Liverpool County Court on 14 February 2008. The tenant, who suffered from persistent delusions, had twice damaged the electrical and gas installations in his flat, creating a risk of explosion, fire or structural collapse. He had left the property, but refused to remove his possessions so that repairs could be carried out.

The county court considered whether possession proceedings were necessary, whether possession was reasonable under section 7 of the Housing Act 1988, and whether an order should be suspended or postponed subject to compliance with medical support and medication. The central issue was whether the evidence established that the risk of further dangerous damage had been sufficiently reduced.

1. Appeal dismissed. The county court’s immediate possession order was upheld.
2. The appropriate inquiry was whether the court could be satisfied that there was no longer a real risk of the tenant causing further damage if he returned to the repaired property. The court rejected the broader formulation of whether he was likely to repeat the conduct. The gravity of the potential consequences, including danger to the tenant and neighbouring tenants, made the real-risk formulation appropriate.
3. The psychiatric evidence did not establish that the risk had disappeared. Although the tenant’s delusions appeared less intrusive and community support and medication might reduce the risk, the evidence remained that returning him to the property without effective support could lead to further damage.
4. The landlord had reasonably concluded that possession proceedings were necessary to protect health and safety. The judge was entitled to take account of the tenant’s disability, his lack of insight, his refusal to remove possessions despite a court order, the failed attempts to resolve the problem, and the absence of a realistic lesser alternative.
5. There was a legal sequence of questions, including reasonableness under section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 and possible suspension or postponement. Here each question depended on the same continuing risk. Suspension or postponement would have allowed the risk to become live again and was therefore not a realistic solution. Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lord Justice Pill agreed with Lord Justice Jacob’s reasons.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The possession order made by His Honour Judge Trigger on 14 February 2008 was upheld.
• Liverpool County Court: His Honour Judge Trigger made an immediate possession order on 14 February 2008.