Teign Housing v Richard Lane
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Dingemans |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 40 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: 7BS0048C |
| Date | 16 January 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 40 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
ON APPEAL FROM THE TORQUAY AND NEWTON ABBOT COUNTY COURT
Bristol Civil Family Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR
Mr Justice Dingemans
Case No: 7BS0048C
Nicholas Grundy QC (instructed by Capsticks LLP) for the Appellant
Russell James (instructed by Cartridges Law) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 18 th December 2017
Judgment Approved
Introduction
This is an appeal by Teign Housing against the order of His Honour Judge Simon Carr (“the Judge”) dated 23 June 2017 in the Truro County Court dismissing Teign Housing's claim against Richard Lane (“Mr Lane”) for possession of a flat known as 56 Priory, Bovey Tracey, Devon (“the flat”). This is a one bedroom ground floor flat. Mr Lane occupies the flat with two pet dogs.
Mr Nicholas Grundy QC on behalf of Teign Housing submits that the Judge incorrectly introduced a concept of a “relevant breach” of the tenancy agreement and therefore wrongly failed to find certain breaches of the tenancy agreement proved, and that notwithstanding Mr Lane's mental disorder of a paranoid personality disorder it remained reasonable, legitimate and proportionate to order possession, so that the appeal ought to be allowed and possession ordered. Mr Russell James on behalf of Mr Lane accepts that what the Judge intended by use of the phrase “relevant breach” is not immediately clear, but relies on the fact that the Judge had said that even if he was wrong about grounds of possession it would not have been reasonable to order possession and has served a Respondent's Notice to the effect that it would not be reasonable to order possession even if further grounds for possession were made out. Mr James submits that any order for possession would amount to disability discrimination and that the appeal should be dismissed.
Relevant factual background
Teign Housing provides social housing. The flat is a ground floor flat in a detached block of four flats in Bovey Tracey. Mr Lane, who is a 33 year old man, had previously been a tenant of Teign Housing at other properties in Teignmouth and Newton Abbott. The evidence showed that Mr Lane was a vulnerable person and had suffered from anti-social behaviour from another tenant when living as a tenant of Teign Housing in Newton Abbott. Mr Lane had moved to the flat in Bovey Tracey in August 2016 pursuant to a tenancy agreement dated 23 rd August 2016 (“the tenancy agreement”). Some of the neighbouring tenants in the detached block of flats are also vulnerable persons.
Before moving into the flat Mr Lane had a meeting with Mr Hanrahan, who was then Chief Executive Officer of Teign Housing. There was an issue between Teign Housing and Mr Lane about what was agreed at that meeting. It was common ground that Mr Hanrahan agreed that an area of communal garden would be fenced off for Mr Lane's dogs. It appears from the witness statements that although other tenants might have agreed to this proposed fencing off when Mr Lane visited the flat to see whether to apply for it, those other tenants felt that they had not been given a choice about agreeing to the fencing off and the proposed area needed to be adjusted to allow them to get to their bins.
After moving in Mr Lane carried out alterations to the gas flue for the flat on 27 th August 2016. Mr Lane contended that he had understood that in his meeting with Mr Hanrahan, Mr Hanrahan had given permission for Mr Lane to move the gas flue and fixtures and fittings in the kitchen, but if Mr Lane had not been given permission he had, because of his mental disorder, honestly believed that he had such permission so that if he had acted in breach of conditions of the tenancy it would not be reasonable to order possession.
Problems arose between Mr Lane and other neighbouring tenants. Neighbouring tenants complained about loud music. On 27 th August 2016 Teign Housing was informed about the works removing the flue. Mr Lane was upset that the fenced off area of the garden had been changed.
On 8 th September 2016 Mr Lane installed CCTV fixing it to the walls of the flat, and altered the fixtures and fittings in the kitchen. There was a factual issue about whether that had been agreed with Mr Hanrahan and where the CCTV, once installed, was pointing. Other tenants complained about being watched on CCTV.
On 22 nd September 2016 Teign Housing became aware that Mr Lane had carried out extensive works to the kitchen at the flat. As a result of concerns about disturbance to asbestos Mr Lane was moved back to his previous premises on 3 rd October 2016. On 5 th October 2016 Mr Lane returned to the flat and asked the contractor to leave and Mr Lane changed the locks. On 12 th October 2016 Mr Lane allowed Teign Housing access to the flat. Further investigations showed that there was no problem with asbestos.
The proceedings below
Teign Housing served a notice seeking possession on 13 th October 2016. Teign Housing brought proceedings for possession on 21 st October 2016, and amended Particulars of Claim were served on 22 nd November 2016. Teign Housing claimed possession of the flat on a number of grounds in proceedings. Possession was sought under the Housing Act 1988 (“the Housing Act”) pursuant to grounds set out in schedule 2. The two main grounds relied on were: (1) ground 12, a breach of a term of the tenancy other than one relating to the payment of rent; and (2) ground 14, causing nuisance and annoyance. The particular acts included: (1) removing fixtures and fittings in the kitchen without consent; (2) removing a gas flue without consent; (3) excluding contractors from the flat; (4) installing CCTV without permission so that the cameras covered communal areas and unsettled the other tenants; (5) playing loud music so as to cause nuisance and annoyance; (6) behaving aggressively to neighbours; (7) threatening a member of Teign Housing's staff in a telephone conversation; and (8) leaving an untaxed car blocking access to the communal car park.
The proceedings were defended on the bases that: (1) breaches of the tenancy agreement had not been proved, in part because Mr Hanrahan had given permission for works to be carried out, and Mr Lane had not caused nuisance and annoyance; (2) it would not be reasonable to make an order for possession; and (3) an order for possession would amount to disability discrimination.
Dr David Bickerton, a consultant psychiatrist, was appointed the single joint expert and produced a report for trial dated 31 st March 2017. The report is careful and helpful. It sets out the details of Mr Lane's diagnosis of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) when a child, and his attendance at a specialist school and issues which had occurred there. That report identified that Mr Lane suffered from a paranoid personality disorder, possible adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and harmful use of alcohol. It was noted that a personality disorder was a deeply ingrained, pervasive and maladaptive pattern of behaviour. Mr Lane had a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others and their motives.
Dr Bickerton noted that Mr Lane had had problems with alcohol and the use of cannabis. Dr Bickerton noted that Mr Lane was taking a sedative antidepressant which was calming but not curative, prolonged psychotherapy was required for the paranoid personality disorder and medication might assist with the possible adult ADHD. It was recorded that Mr Lane would only engage with support services if he desires. It was also noted that compliance with court order would be difficult for Mr Lane because of his condition. The report concluded, and it is common ground, that Mr Lane is disabled, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
The judgment of His Honour Judge Carr
The claim for possession was heard by the Judge on 5 th and 6 th June 2017. By a judgment dated 23 rd June 2017 the Judge dismissed the claim for possession. He noted the background and complaints in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment. The Judge dealt first with the factual matters, and then turned to the legal framework.
The Judge set out the medical evidence as it was “key to understanding events” (paragraph 5 of the judgment). The Judge noted that Mr Lane had a pervasive mistrust and suspicion of others and their motives, along with an unjustified belief that others are trying to harm or deceive him. Innocent remarks were perceived to be personal attacks leading to an angry or hostile exchange. Mr Lane found personal interaction extremely challenging. The Judge noted that Dr Bickerton recorded that because of his illness Mr Lane would find it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with orders restraining or restricting his behaviour (paragraph 5 of the judgment).
The Judge recorded that the other tenants of the flats were older than Mr Lane, and had enjoyed a very quiet and tranquil existence before Mr Lane's arrival, meaning that any disturbance, however mild, would have a significant impact on the other residents (paragraph 6 of the judgment). The Judge noted that the challenges that Mr Lane presented as a tenant were obvious to Teign Housing as it was obvious to the court from Mr Lane's demeanour and the manner of his evidence, because of his ill-health (paragraph 7 of the judgment). The Judge rejected Teign Housing's criticism of Mr Lane's failure to engage with the Community Mental Health Team (“CMHT”), holding that there was patchy engagement, but engagement (paragraph 8 of the judgment). The Judge held that the engagement had not been carried through because the CMHT had wrongly concluded that Mr Lane did not have a mental health problem with which they could assist.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (on the application of Carly Jayne Willott) v Eastbourne Borough Council
...whether, with treatment, the relevant behaviour could improve: Croydon LBC v Moody (1999) 31 HLR 738, pp744 to 745; Teign Housing v Lane [2018] EWHC 40, at [56] and [57]. It would not be reasonable to make a possession order which would involve disability discrimination: Teign [41]. The poi......