In this article Neelam Sharma looks at two recent cases whereby the Courts have taken a very robust approach in respect of antisocial behaviour.
In the first the Court rejected an application to adjourn a trial and proceeded where the allegations were those of racist and verbal abuse and in the second the Birmingham Courts again upheld the decision of Sheffield City Council –v- Hopkins thus allowing landlords to introduce antisocial behaviour to rent arrears cases.
Case 1
When you obtain a Possession Order through rent arrears, you can oppose an application to suspend a warrant for possession, because of antisocial behaviour in addition to lack of payments.
A Judge in Birmingham last week stopped a chain of suspensions of warrants, by refusing to suspend the warrant any further. It was accepted that the tenant had caused a nuisance and annoyance to his neighbours and this in addition to an increase in arrears justified his eviction.
Neelam Sharma, an Associate at Lee Crowder Solicitors, believes that a more robust approach is required now that social landlords are able to use antisocial behaviour at warrant stage. It is more cost-effective for social landlords to oppose an application to suspend the warrant because of antisocial behaviour, rather than having to issue two sets of proceedings.
For you to adopt the authority of Sheffield City Council –v- Lisa Hopkins, it must be noted that the anti-social behaviour must have occurred after the original Possession Order was obtained. Prior to any hearing, you must notify your tenant that you wish to rely upon this Court of Appeal authority. It is envisaged that many social landlords will adopt such a route where there is a combination of problems such as rent arrears and anti-social behaviour.
| 
Publications & Events 
