Swindon Borough Council v Redpath

The jurisdiction to grant an anti-social behaviour injunction under section 153A of the Housing Act 1996 has broad coverage. Conduct is housing-related where, viewed as a whole and in context, it directly or indirectly relates to or affects a relevant landlord’s housing management functions.

The respondent need not be the landlord’s tenant or live or work in the affected area. Conduct directed partly at owner-occupiers may qualify where it also substantially disturbs the landlord’s tenants, property or management of housing in the neighbourhood. Earlier conduct may supply relevant context and, in an appropriate case, remain jurisdictionally relevant to a renewed or continuing campaign. Any overlap with the statutory regime for anti-social behaviour orders does not remove jurisdiction, although it may affect the court’s discretion.

Swindon Borough Council obtained a three-year anti-social behaviour injunction against its former secure tenant, Michael Redpath. Following his eviction, Mr Redpath repeatedly returned to his former neighbourhood and continued a campaign of intimidation, threats and criminal damage. The affected area contained Council tenants, owner-occupiers, Council-owned housing and garages let to Council tenants.

His Honour Judge Wade held that the County Court had jurisdiction under section 153A of the Housing Act 1996. He relied both on Mr Redpath’s earlier housing-related conduct and on a later incident involving Council-owned garages.

Mr Redpath appealed on the ground that his post-eviction conduct was not “housing-related”. The central issue was whether that conduct directly or indirectly related to or affected the Council’s housing management functions, as required by section 153A.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conduct between March and June 2008 was housing-related and justified the injunction. Rix LJ gave the leading judgment. Lord Neuberger agreed with his reasons and Carnwath LJ agreed with both judgments.

2. The expression “housing-related” in section 153A(1) of the Housing Act 1996 has a broad sweep. The phrases “directly or indirectly” and “relating to or affecting”, together with the inclusive definition of housing management functions in section 153E(11), require a broad rather than narrow approach. The legislation enacted in 2003 and 2006 substantially widened the former statutory scheme and displaced the restrictive practical effect of the nexus required under the former section 152.

3. A local authority’s housing management functions include concern for its tenants, housing property and the peace and amenity of neighbourhoods in which it manages housing. Those functions are not artificially confined to a homogeneous council estate. Modern housing areas may contain social tenants, private tenants and owner-occupiers.

4. The respondent to an injunction need not be a tenant of the relevant landlord, nor need that person live or work in the affected area. Equally, the presence of owner-occupiers among the principal victims does not prevent jurisdiction. Section 153A(3)(b) expressly includes persons occupying housing near accommodation owned or managed by the relevant landlord.

5. The conduct should ordinarily be evaluated as a whole and in its factual context rather than divided into isolated incidents. Mr Redpath’s continued intimidation affected the peace and enjoyment of Council tenants, concerned garages let by the Council and made the immediate area less attractive as a place to live. His post-eviction conduct was a continuation of his campaign against former neighbours and therefore affected the Council’s housing management functions.

6. Rix LJ considered that earlier housing-related conduct could itself establish jurisdiction under the words “has engaged”, although its remoteness would bear on discretion. Lord Neuberger doubted whether identical evidence supporting an expired injunction could, without anything further, justify another injunction. That question did not require decision because fresh conduct had occurred and, viewed with the earlier behaviour, either constituted housing-related conduct or demonstrated a renewed threat of it.

7. The possible availability of an anti-social behaviour order did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant an anti-social behaviour injunction. Where both statutory remedies are available, the authority may choose between them for jurisdictional purposes, although their differences may remain relevant to discretion.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the County Court’s jurisdiction to grant the anti-social behaviour injunction: [2009] EWCA Civ 943.

2. Swindon County Court: His Honour Judge Wade granted a three-year anti-social behaviour injunction on 21 July 2008. He held that the court had jurisdiction because Mr Redpath had previously engaged in housing-related conduct and because later conduct affected Council-owned garages and the Council’s housing management functions.