Here is a question to the blog clinic from Barbara (not her real name):
Some individuals in our street are renting from a private landlord. They have been exhibiting antisocial behaviour across the neighbourhood but have recently gone as far as threatening violence (including a threat to kill) to one of our neighbours who have lived in the street for several decades.
The threat has been heard in court as a criminal charge but the people threatened have had to move out to temporary accommodation as they are in fear of their lives.
However, the antisocial neighbours are still not under any obligation to move and their landlord refuses to evict them. Is there anything we can do as a neighbourhood? The victims cannot sell their house as they would have to declare any problems with neighbours in a HIP.
This is a real problem and there is no easy solution.
The landlord is not bound to evict the tenants if he does not want to. There are good reasons why he might NOT want to during the fixed term of the tenancy as bringing eviction proceedings on anti social behaviour grounds can be expensive if the tenants defend (which they may well do).
The landlord cannot be liable himself for the actions of his tenants – unless perhaps he knowingly and maliciously installed antisocial tenants. But generally one person cannot be held legally liable for the acts of another.
If the neighbourhood got together and offered to fund a court claim for possession maybe the landlord could be persuaded to take action. However if the claim failed, note that you all might be liable to the tenants in costs (I doubt you would lose the cose but it has to be said).
Short of that, I am not sure what could be done. Does anyone have any ideas?
The City of London Bailiffs operate one of the largest ASB surveillance/expert witness services in London. Working on behalf of housing associations, landlords and the general public gathering compelling evidence for court proceedings in all nuisance neighbour issues.
The question asked “what can be done ?”
The first procedure is to gain the evidence, a professional witness or similar third party statement is judged as being the most reliable evidence.
I would also add that legal representation is also best recommended.
Court proceedings is the only lawful way of dealing with the problem.
ASBO’s, evictions, curfews, seizures, fines, banning orders and other sentencing can then be ordered by the Courts.
Involve local authority and go ASBO route.
@Trevor McMaster – there is not a lot of point in the neighbours incurring a lot of expense in obtaining this sort of evidence if the landlord is not prepared to issue proceedings for possession.
Only the landlord can bring proceedings for possession in the civil courts.
Very defeatest reply: Possession is not the only enforcement procedure, as I did mention.
But do they actually result in the anti social tenants moving out?
The sort of evidence you suggest can be very expensive. Neighbours will not normally be able to afford this and will not want to spend the money unless they are fairly certain it will result in the tenants actually being evicted and leaving the area.
I don’t do criminal law, but I know that putting someone in prison does not actually end the tenancy agreement – they would be able to go back there (and carry on with the intimidation) once their sentence had ended.
Will anything other than eviction proceedings really resolve the problem for neighbours?
There are some powers that a local authority has in this situation although they have been rarely used for a variety of reasons.
Under Sect 103 of the Housing Act 2004 an LA can apply for a Special Interim Management Order if it is considered that it is the only way to ensure the health,safety and welfare of people living in or visiting the locality.
An LA will need to convince a Residential Property Tribunal that the only way to stop the problems is to transfer the management of the property to the Council. In the alternative the police, in conjunction with the Council can issue a temporary emergency closure order (normally used for Crack houses or brothels)which prevents the property being used for residential purposes for an initial period (3 months I think)which is renewable.
The landlord and the tenant can apply to the Magistrates Court to set aside the order, which is normally effective (again, I think 7 days after it is issued, so the landlord or tenant have to act fast)
As the property can not legally be lived in it in effect suspends the tenancy or may as such provide the evidence for a possession order. The problem for a Council is that it may also have a duty towards the other residents in the property, particularly if children are involved to ensure that they are not street homeless, even if the adults who may be the perpetrators are not rehoused.
Very real dilemmas for Councils faced with these problems who are increasingly expected to manage these issues in the existing home – often having evicted the perpetrators from Council or other social housing property.
If the nuisance arises from noise,a statutory nuisance may exist. The Council is duty boud to investigate and serve an abatement notice on the person responsible.This could be the landlord for failing to try to evict. Person responsible is determined by the phrase ” act,default or sufferance” See Environmental Protection Act 1990,Sections 79-82
Could the neighbors contact the local police? A bit of pressure on the landlord by them might give them the motivation they need to serve notice?