Source · Select Committees · Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation 7
7
Accepted in Part
A properly functioning courts system should resolve most of the issues with the process of...
Recommendation
A properly functioning courts system should resolve most of the issues with the process of seeking possession under section 8, but further adjustments to the discretionary ground for possession in respect of antisocial behaviour are also necessary. As currently designed, the discretionary nature of this ground will make it more difficult to prove antisocial behaviour, as residents might be less likely to give evidence if the outcome is uncertain. Whilst we recognise the argument for giving the courts discretion when someone’s home is at stake, we think the impact of antisocial behaviour on communities and landlords, and the compensating abolition of section 21, justify making this ground mandatory. The Government should make existing ground 14 mandatory and issue guidance to the courts setting out the precise definition of antisocial behaviour and the circumstances in which they must grant possession. It should also publish equivalent guidance to landlords and tenants on what constitutes antisocial behaviour and the evidential threshold required to prove it in court. (Paragraph 50) Housing standards and enforcement
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the intent to ensure landlords can act more quickly to evict antisocial tenants and will make grounds for possession faster and easier to prove, while maintaining judicial discretion in antisocial behaviour cases and will reduce the notice period for the mandatory antisocial behavior ground. They will ensure courts can make a possession order where tenants are evicted on the grounds of ASB and later convicted of an offence and will not make Ground 14 mandatory.
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government
Accepted in Part
Sustained acts of intimidating or disruptive behaviour are entirely unacceptable. Landlords must be able to evict persistently problematic tenants, relieving innocent parties living nearby and protecting their property. We therefore fully agree with the intent of the LUHC Select Committee recommendation and have developed a series of measures that together go further. We will ensure landlords can act more quickly than ever before to evict antisocial tenants, including by making grounds for possession – the legal reasons a landlord can evict a tenant – faster and easier to prove. This will mean landlords can take immediate action – rather than giving two months’ notice and waiting for the end of a fixed term, as they currently need to when relying on section 21. In addition to our White Paper commitment to reduce the notice period for the mandatory antisocial behaviour ground and explore prioritising cases in the courts, we will expand on the White Paper by introducing the following additional measures: • We will lower the threshold for Ground 14 so that behaviours capable of causing nuisance or annoyance can lead to eviction. This will ensure landlords can take action on a wider range of behaviour and make cases easier to prove. • We are mandating that written tenancy agreements must include clauses warning antisocial behaviour can result in eviction and will consider including a non-exhaustive list of prohibited behaviours to help landlords provide evidence. • We will legislate to expand the principles that judges must take account of when deciding whether an eviction is reasonable. This could include giving more weight to the impact on victims and whether the tenant has failed to engage with other interventions to manage their behaviour. • We will bring together stakeholders including the relevant agencies, government departments, and stakeholders to ensure better collaboration and comprehensive guidance on tackling antisocial behaviour. • We will legislate to expand the principles that judges must take account of when deciding whether an eviction is reasonable. This could include giving more weight to the impact on victims and whether the tenant has failed to engage with other interventions to manage their behaviour. We fully support the intent behind the Select Committee’s proposal to make the discretionary antisocial behaviour ground mandatory. However, we think the alternative approach above will ensure landlords can gain possession more quickly, while protecting vulnerable tenants – such as those experiencing domestic abuse or the early symptoms of dementia – who are not guilty of antisocial behaviour. Mandatory grounds are always attached to an easily-provable threshold – for example, whether the tenant has more than two months’ arrears, or has committed a particular criminal offence. This is to ensure maximum certainty for the landlord – they know they can prove a ground and possession will be awarded. Specifying such a threshold for all antisocial behaviour would require the government to list specific prohibited behaviours in legislation. Given the huge range of antisocial behaviours, this is likely to mean that some types of behaviours are missed, in fact reducing landlord’s ability to take action. Maintaining discretion means landlords can seek possession in all cases, and judges can consider the facts of each case. Judicial discretion will also prevent innocent tenants being evicted, where behaviour is unfairly perceived as antisocial. For example, a baby crying or a child practising a musical instrument after school has the potential to cause a nuisance or some annoyance to neighbours, but it would be unreasonable to evict a family on that basis. In more serious cases, perceived antisocial behaviour can be a result of mental health issues or domestic abuse. We think our proposals better achieve the Committee’s aims – making it far easier to evict antisocial tenants while protecting the security of responsible tenants.