Worthington & Anor v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd

For conduct to constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the course of conduct as a whole must be oppressive and unacceptable. Its gravity must be sufficient to justify the sanctions of the criminal law. Context is important when locating the boundary between conduct which is merely unattractive or unreasonable and conduct amounting to harassment.

Each constituent act need not itself possess the quality of harassment. The court must nevertheless identify the activities forming the alleged course of conduct clearly enough for the defendant to understand the case and the basis of any adverse finding. Liability may arise without malice or actual knowledge where a reasonable person possessing the information known, or which ought to have been known, would regard the course of conduct as harassment.

A social-housing landlord appealed against a county court judgment holding that it had harassed two long-term assured tenants contrary to section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The tenants were awarded damages under section 3(2).

The landlord and its solicitors had repeatedly accused the tenants of misusing cameras, committing tenancy breaches and behaving improperly towards children. They threatened injunction and possession proceedings. The trial judge found that the allegations lacked a sound factual basis, elementary investigations had not been undertaken and the threats continued for several months.

The appeal asked whether the correspondence, viewed as a course of conduct, attained the gravity required for statutory harassment and whether a reasonable person possessing the relevant information would have recognised it as such. The landlord also challenged the rejection of the statutory defence of reasonable conduct.

1. Appeal dismissed. Kitchin LJ held that the county court judge had applied the correct legal standard and had ample evidence upon which to find harassment. Rose J agreed.
2. A defendant to a claim under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is entitled to know which activities are alleged to constitute the course of conduct and, following judgment, the basis of any finding against it. That requirement was satisfied. The trial judge's reasons identified the relevant letters and email, their objectionable features and the periods during which the threats remained outstanding. The course of conduct as a whole must possess the quality of harassment; every constituent communication need not independently be oppressive and unacceptable.
3. The applicable boundary was between conduct which was merely unattractive or unreasonable and conduct which was oppressive and unacceptable. The criminal-law standard described in Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34 applied, and context was material. These were long-term social-housing tenants for whom threats of possession and eviction were especially liable to cause anxiety. The landlord accused them of serious tenancy breaches and improper conduct involving children, despite knowing or being in a position to discover that one tenant had no CCTV cameras and that the other's cameras had been installed for legitimate security purposes.
4. The landlord acted on inadequately scrutinised complaints and evidence assembled by an inadequately supervised junior employee. It ignored elementary advice to inspect the equipment and verify the allegations. The resulting threats of possession and injunction proceedings had no proper factual foundation and continued through repeated correspondence. A reasonable person possessing the information which the landlord's staff knew or ought to have known would have regarded that conduct as causing alarm and distress. Malice and actual knowledge of harassment were unnecessary. The correspondence crossed the statutory boundary and was oppressive and unacceptable. Because the landlord failed on that issue, its challenge under section 1(3)(c) could not succeed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The landlord's appeal was dismissed by [2018] EWCA Civ 1125. The finding of harassment and the damages awards were left undisturbed.
2. County Court at Nottingham: His Honour Judge Owen QC held that the landlord had unlawfully harassed both tenants under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He awarded damages of £4,750 and £4,160 respectively under section 3(2). No citation is stated.