Legal case studies
CaseStudies
1. Suspension of Warrant of eviction
Our Sarah Robinson acted on behalf of E in applying to suspend a warrant for possession issued by her landlord due to breaches of her tenancy agreement. E was not named directly in any of the allegations as being responsible for the alleged nuisance behaviour. E had been confined to her bedroom with her dogs whilst her son took over her home.
E notified the Local Authority that she had asked her son to move out of the property and she did not intend to allow him to return.
Negotiations took place between the parties and terms of an order were agreed prior to the hearing suspending the warrant on the basis that E did not allow her son to enter the property and in the event of any breach the Claimant was to notify E in advance.
2. Succession rights granted
A local authority landlord issued a possession claim on the grounds that our client, P had no right to succeed to her late partner’s tenancy agreement.
Our Solicitor, Shabnam Raza reviewed the landlord’s tenancy file and policies on succession before filing a defence.
Prior to the Trial, the local authority landlord granted a tenancy to P for the same property and subsequently withdrew their claim for possession of the property.
3. Local authority possession action stopped
Our Sarah Robinson assisted A with defending her landlord's claim for possession based on rent arrears. There were also some allegations of nuisance and anti-social behaviour but these were later dropped by the landlord. We represented A at York County Court on four occasions due to the complexity of the matter. At the final hearing, the landlord agreed to adjourn the case on the basis that the rent account had been brought into credit and the anti-social behaviour issues had been addressed.
4. Defence and Counterclaim of landlord’s Mandatory Ground 8 claim
Our Solicitor Zaheer Mahmood was instructed to defend a claim for possession issued against our client, C, by a private landlord based on mandatory ground 8. C had agreed to vacate the property and in return, the landlord agreed to write off any and all rent arrears outstanding as at the date he gave up possession. It was also agreed that the landlord would pay C £2800 within 7 days of receiving the keys from C as penalty for failing to protect the tenancy deposit in a designated deposit protection scheme.
5. Possession Order Set Aside
Our Sarah Robinson acted on behalf of W in possession proceedings issued by her landlord due to non payment of rent after W did not attend the initial possession hearing. A Possession Order was made with W required to vacate the property within 14 days. The landlord then applied for an eviction warrant.
W suffered with Bi-Polar Disorder and PTSD. Her 4 children had been removed from her care due to her mental health and domestic violence issues from her ex partner. W also suffered with post-natal depression and turned to alcohol. She had buried her head in the sand.
Sarah filed an application to set aside the possession order on the basis that W had mitigating reasons for not attending the initial possession hearing.
The application to set aside was granted and the warrant for possession was also set aside. The local authorities housing department agreed to pay £2000 to the landlord to clear W's outstanding rent arrears and to cover the shortfall between the housing element of W's Universal Credit and her rent, for the next 3 months. W was allowed to stay at the property.
6. Damages received
Our client H received a possession claim from a private landlord on the basis of rent arrears. Due to the arrears, H was harassed and threatened by his landlord and his agents. Our Solicitor Zaheer Mahmood filed a Defence and Counterclaim at court on the basis that the tenancy deposit was not protected in a tenancy deposit scheme and due to the harassment. At the court hearing, the possession claim was dismissed. The landlord was also ordered to return the deposit of £600 to H including damages of £6,850.
7. ASB Mandatory Ground claim dismissed
The local authority landlord served a section 83ZA notice seeking possession relying on grounds 1 and 2 to Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985. Additionally, they relied on mandatory ground 84A, namely condition 4 as they obtained a Closure Order of the property for a period of 3 months.
Our client, G presented with a learning disability for which she was diagnosed when she was younger, making it difficult for her to manage her affairs. She was also diagnosed with depression and anxiety, struggled to read or write and could just about manage to do simple things. Due to her level of understanding, people took advantage of her as she was an easy target.
A report from an expert Psychiatrist was obtained which confirmed that G did not have the necessary mental capacity to understand the proceedings. The Official Solicitor was invited to act as G's litigation friend.
At the trial, our Solicitor Zaheer Mahmood invited the court to dismiss the claim in the circumstances. In light of G’s inability to read or write, and her learning disabilities, he successfully argued that no other local authority would have acted in the manner in which the landlord did by simply delivering the notice to G without an explanation. The landlord's decision to serve the Notice as it did, and to issue proceedings relying on the notice, was unreasonable and irrational. Furthermore, the above actions by the landlord amounted to procedural impropriety by failing to observe the principles of natural justice. G struggled to look after herself and also struggled to look after her son as a result of which social services intervened and he moved out of the property to be placed in his father’s care. G struggled, due to her learning disability, to exert any control over her son and his friends and at times telephoned the Police because she was unable to control the youths visiting her property. G did not receive any support from anyone throughout this period and was unable to deal with this by herself. She therefore welcomed the making of the Closure Order which lapsed in April 2019. Despite there being no Closure Order at the time of the trial, there were no further complaints of any nuisance or annoyance being caused or any other anti-social behaviour. The desired effect of the Closure Order was achieved.
In the circumstances, it is was wholly irrational and unreasonable for the landlord to have served G with the Notice Seeking Possession without ensuring that she understood fully what it meant and without ensuring that she should seek legal advice in good time and in the knowledge that she was entitled to a right of review. Further, prior to serving the Notice Seeking Possession and issuing proceedings, the landlord failed to consider other options and tools available to it as a means of achieving a complete cessation of anti-social behaviour as an alternative to seeking possession; in particular the tools advocated in the landlord's own Anti-Social Behaviour Policy and in the Home Office Guidance.
The Judge was satisfied that the claim against G was unlawful as the allegations against her were directly caused by her disability and inability to control her son’s actions.
Further the landlord had failed, when deciding to terminate G’s tenancy to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty as set out in section 149 Equality Act 2010 on the basis that G was disabled for the purposes of that Act by virtue of her mental health issues and due regard had not been given to her disabilities. A possession order was therefore an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with her rights under Article 8 ECHR.
At trial, the possession claim was rightfully dismissed and following a multi-agency approach, a package of support was put in place to assist G to better manage her tenancy and affairs.
