Manchester City Council v Higgins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Ward,Lord Justice Gage |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 1423 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 24 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2005/1730 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1423
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT
Recorder Main QC
4MA15166
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Ward and
Lord Justice Gage
Case No: B2/2005/1730
Mrs Zoe Thompson (instructed by Manchester City Council) for the Appellant
Mr John Hobson (instructed by Shelter Housing Aid Centre) for the Respondent
Crown copyright©
South Gorton must be one of the less desirable residential areas of Manchester. When not loitering idly on street corners, young vandals damage cars, kick down fences, smash windows and are generally foul mouthed and abusive to all and sundry. The respondent to this appeal, Lorraine Higgins, says she and her family have suffered such damage and such abuse. That may well be true but what the case is about – and it is a deeply depressing story—is the appalling misbehaviour of her 12 year old son, James. A near neighbour, Mrs Marion Copeland and her family, have been the victims of his malicious damage, bullying and abuse. The appellant, the Manchester City Council, brought proceedings against the respondent on grounds of the breach of the obligations of her tenancy that she and those living with her should not harass her neighbours and of their causing a nuisance or annoyance to them. On 20 th May 2005 Mr Recorder Main Q.C. found the grounds established, held it was reasonable to make a possession order but suspended its operation for 18 months on terms, in summary, she complied with her tenancy agreement and took steps to improve her parenting skills. The council now appeal with leave of the Recorder.
The Facts.
The respondent is a single mother of three children, Emma who will be 16 years old in a month's time, James who turned 13 in August and Roisin who is 2 years old. Roisin was born with two holes in her heart. She has needed and continues to need regular medical attention and it is easy to understand that the state of this little girl's health has contributed to the mother's stress. She saw her doctor in September 2004 complaining of feeling depressed which may have been a problem that had troubled her for some years. There is a letter from the general practitioner who felt that "a lot of her difficulties related to social problems and the fact that she has a rather non-assertive personality". He prescribed anti-depressants for her but the Family Intervention and Support Services reported that she might not have taken that medication.
She lives at 43 Hexham Road, Gorton South in Manchester as the tenant of the local authority whose tenancy agreement made on 19 th June 1995 includes terms that:—
"4.1 You are responsible for the behaviour of every person (including children) living in or visiting your home. You are responsible in your home, on surrounding land, in communal areas (stairs, lifts, landings, entrance halls, paving, shared garden, park, parking areas) and in the locality around your home.
4.2 You (or anyone living with you, or visiting your home) must not cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to any other person. Examples of nuisance, annoyance or disturbance include:—
• Loud music; arguing and door slamming; dog barking and fouling; offensive drunkenness; selling drugs or drug abuse; rubbish dumping; playing ball games close to someone else's home.
4.3 You (or anyone living with you, or visiting your home) must not harass any other person. Examples of harassment include:—
• Racist behaviour or language; using or threatening to use violence; using abusive or insulting words or behaviour; damaging or threatening to damage another person's home or possessions; writing threatening, abusive or insulting graffiti; doing anything that interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of others."
Mrs Copeland is a widow who has lived at 4 Lowther Avenue, in South Gorton, since about 1999. Her home is adjacent to the respondent's. She has three sons, each sadly suffering mental disability. Timothy, 17 years old, has the mental age of an 11 year old; Dean, aged 15, has the mental age of a 9 year old and Kenneth, aged 8, has the mental age of a 4 year old.
James, and to a much lesser extent, Emma have caused Mrs Copeland much distress through their swearing at her and her children, bullying the children and damaging her property. It is unnecessary to catalogue each and every incident: it is enough to give the flavour. Thus in January 2004, James smashed three windows in her property and all the windows of her motorcar. In March James assaulted Dean. In April James and a friend threw mud through Mrs Copeland's open front door, some of it striking Kenneth. Again in April James and another boy were throwing beer bottles into her back garden at 1 a.m. On 9 th May her windows were again damaged and Dean was again assaulted.
As a result on 13 th May 2004 the Housing Services Manager of the local authority had to write to complain and to require the respondent to attend "a formal neighbourhood nuisance interview". Following that interview the Local Services Manager wrote to the respondent in these terms:—
"As I have explained to you at the meeting we have had numerous complaints regarding your son's behaviour. It was pointed out to you that you are responsible for the behaviour of every person (including children) living in or visiting your home, and that any nuisance behaviour from yourself or others in your home is a breach of your tenancy agreement and could lead to eviction from your property.
As I pointed out to you during the interview, the anti-social behaviour of your son James Nicholas can no longer be tolerated. We have discussed this matter with you on numerous occasions and given you several warnings about this serious problem. It was explained to you that if James's behaviour did not change we would be left with no alternative but to begin legal proceedings."
The letters had no effect. On 14 th May Emma and James were abusive and threw stones at Mrs Copeland. Later they picked on Timothy and when Mrs Copeland intervened, they again threw stones at her. The police were called. Mrs Copeland spoke to the respondent to tell her that the police were coming and that she would report the matter to the housing authorities. The respondent's response was to say:—
"I don't give a shit if you have rung the police. I am going out."
James and Emma began to swear at Mr Copeland in their mother's presence. The respondent simply laughed and did nothing to stop them. On 27 th May windows were again broken by James whose response was "So what. I don't care". On 9 th July James persuaded Timothy to let him enter the house whilst Mrs Copeland was absent. They stole her jewellery and both were arrested. Getting her son into trouble with the police was for Mrs Copeland "the final straw".
James had not confined his misbehaviour to Mrs Copeland. Police evidence before the court showed that he had come to the attention of the police on many occasions involving many others. The police referred the family to the Youth Support Team and there were meetings with the Family Intervention and Support Services, the Education Welfare Services, the Youth Offending Team and the Housing Department, all trying to develop and implement a care plan for the whole family unit. Part of that which was in place by about the summer of 2004 was support from SureStart, a nationwide government initiative to improve the health and wellbeing of parents and children of 5 and under.
If the respondent needed to be reminded of the seriousness of her position, the local authority applied for an injunction against her which was granted without notice to her on 24 th August returnable on 8 th September. On that date the respondent represented by her solicitor gave undertakings in which she promised whether by herself or by allowing, inciting or encouraging any other person not to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person with a right to reside in the neighbourhood of her home or harass, use abusive or insulting or threatening behaviour or use or threaten violence against any such person or enter or attempt to enter Mrs Copeland's property. Despite that promise two girls called at Mrs Copeland's home that very evening telling her that James was "going to get" Timothy.
By the end of September Manchester City Council considered it necessary to take action. They applied to the Magistrates Court for an Anti-Social Behaviour Order ("an ASBO") against James. This was granted on 5 th November restraining him from acting in an anti-social manner, using abusive, insulting, offensive, threatening or intimidating language or behaviour in a public place, throwing stones or other missiles or approaching Mrs Copeland and other named persons. This order was to continue until his 16 th birthday.
It had no effect. On 14 th December at about 4.15 a.m. Mrs Copeland was woken by James "smashing up" her two motorcars, a mobility car and her own car. He threw what looked like part of a gatepost through the back window of her car, he broke the wing mirrors, let down the tyres and scratched his initials "JN" onto the bonnet of one of the cars. She said it cost £1,730 to repair the damage on the mobility car and her Citroen was said to be a complete write-off. James was arrested and placed in a bail hostel for young persons in Bury.
On 2 nd February 2005 the Council issued its claim for possession under grounds 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985 as amended.
Whilst on remand James assaulted a fellow 11...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brent London Borough Council v Doughan
...25 I agree. With regard to the claim for possession the facts of this are entirely different from the horrendous facts of Manchester City Council v Higgins [2005] EWCA Civ 1423, where this court did consider the provision of section 85A of the Housing Act 1985. In that case, Mr Recorder Mai......
-
Friendship Care & Housing Association v Hameeda Begum
...apply in deciding whether or not to suspend a possession or pursuant to section 85 has now been clearly set out in two cases: Manchester City Council v Higgins [2005] EWCA Civ 1423, [2006] HLR 14 and Sandwell NBC v Hensley [2007] EWCA Civ 1425, [2008] HLR 22. The judge cited both of those......
-
Birmingham City Council v Gavin James The SEcretary of State for the Home Department (Intervener)
...Trust [2006] UKHL 34; [2007] 1 AC 224; [2006] 3 WLR 125; [2006] ICR 1199; [2006] 4 All ER 395, HL(E)Manchester City Council v Higgins [2005] EWCA Civ 1423; [2006] 1 All ER 841, CAMitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11; [2009] AC 874; [2009] 2 WLR 481; [2009] PTSR 778; [2009] 3 All E......
-
Poplar Housing & Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Ms Afsana Begum and Another
...seems to me that the court should only suspend the order if there is cogent evidence which demonstrates, as Ward L.J. put it in Manchester City Council v Higgins [2005] EWCA Civ 1423, a sound basis for the hope that the previous conduct will cease." THE DECISION OF THE RECORDER 34 I am sati......