Metropolitan Housing Trust v Hadjazi

Ground 14A in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 is not confined to violence occurring while the parties were living together. For a social landlord, it may apply where the dwelling-house was occupied by a relevant couple, one partner was the tenant, the other left because of violence or threats, and that partner is unlikely to return. The causative conduct may continue after separation and after the tenant has temporarily left. The court also indicated that the nuisance ground and tenancy obligations considered did not extend to private domestic violence within the tenant’s household. Under s7(4), reasonableness must be reconsidered where the initial assessment was based on an erroneous construction.

Metropolitan Housing Trust, a registered social landlord, sought possession of a house let to Mr Hadjazi under grounds 12, 14 and 14A of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. His wife and children had left after a history of domestic violence, including violence continuing after Mr Hadjazi had temporarily left the property.

The Croydon County Court dismissed the claim. It held that ground 14A applied only where the relevant violence occurred while the couple were living together in the property. It also concluded that possession would not have been reasonable even if the ground were made out. The central issue on appeal was whether ground 14A required cohabitation at the time of the causative violence or the victim’s departure.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Mummery gave the leading judgment. Sir Paul Kennedy and Lord Justice Lloyd agreed. The appeal was allowed, and the issue of reasonableness was remitted to a different county court judge. The causation issue did not require remittal because the trial judge had made a clear finding that Mr Hadjazi’s conduct caused his wife to leave.
2. Construction of ground 14A. Ground 14A looks back to the occupation of the dwelling-house by the relevant couple and to the event causing one partner to leave. It then looks forward to whether that partner is unlikely to return. The use of the past tense does not require the parties to have been living together as a couple when the causative violence occurred or when the victim left. The references to a couple and a partner identify persons in the relevant relationship. There was no ambiguity requiring a penal construction, and no relevant discrimination supported the narrower interpretation.
3. Application. The statutory requirements were capable of being satisfied on the facts. The property had been occupied by Mr and Mrs Hadjazi as a married couple; Mr Hadjazi was the tenant; violence and threats continued after separation; his wife and children left because of that conduct; and she was unlikely to return.
4. Grounds 12 and 14. Although unnecessary to the disposition, Mummery LJ agreed that the tenancy obligations relied on under ground 12, read in context, concerned quiet enjoyment and the rights of other tenants and neighbours, not conduct towards family members in the privacy of the home. He also considered that ground 14 protected persons outside the tenant’s household in the locality. The distinct domestic-violence ground introduced by s149 of the Housing Act 1996, and the limited amendment made by s148, supported that conclusion.
5. Reasonableness. Under s7(4) of the Housing Act 1988, a possession order could be made only if reasonable in all the circumstances. The trial judge’s alternative assessment had been made in the context of an erroneous construction of ground 14A and therefore did not bind the appellate or remitted court. The whole question had to be reconsidered with evidence of the up-to-date position.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2010] EWCA Civ 750, the appeal was allowed. The construction of ground 14A was corrected, and the issue of reasonableness was remitted to a different county court judge.
2. Croydon County Court: HHJ Ellis dismissed the possession claim on 6 October 2009, holding that ground 14A did not apply on the narrower construction and that possession would not in any event have been reasonable.