Royal Borough of Greenwich v Tuitt
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE VOS
- LORD JUSTICE TREACY
- LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Ms. Charlotte Tuitt appealed a possession order of her secure tenancy due to her son Anton's anti-social behavior and conviction. District Judge Beattie found the grounds for possession valid and reasonable, refusing suspension. The appeal contested reasonable application and evidence assessment, citing previous case law. The court reiterated that no personal tenant fault is needed for such orders and upheld the possession decision due to continuing nuisance risks.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE VOS:
The Defendant, Ms Charlotte Tuitt, appeals against the order for possession made against her in respect of her secure tenancy of a three bedroom first floor flat at 61 Kingsdale Road, Plumstead, SE18 2DE (the property) on the grounds that her son, who is now 18 years old and lives with her and her partner at the property, has committed repeated acts of nuisance and annoyance to neighbouring residents and has been convicted of an indictable offence committed in the locality. The property is close to but not actually a part of the Gilbourne estate in Plumstead.
Chronological background
2. Anton Tuitt was born on 28 July 1995. A few months later on 5 September 1995, the Defendant entered in a secure weekly tenancy agreement with the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG). Clause 2.1 of the tenancy agreement provided that the Defendant was responsible for ensuring the good behaviour on any part of the estate or neighbourhood of all members of her household, including children. Good behaviour was defined to mean behaviour that respects rights of others to peaceable enjoyment of their home and neighbourhood and does not cause nuisance, annoyance or distress to other people. Other clauses in the tenancy agreement inhibited violence against council employees, noise causing annoyance and other nuisances.
3. On 19 February 2010, Anton Tuitt signed an acceptable behaviour agreement (the ABA) when he was 14 years old, countersigned by the Defendant, in which he agreed not to engage in various specified acts of anti-social behaviour or to threaten or abuse others. On 26 August 2010, the ABA was terminated due to Anton Tuitt's breaches of the ABA and his having continued to act in an anti-social manner.
4. In the early part of 2012, there were nine incidents which formed the subject of the allegations made against the Defendant in these proceedings. On 16 July 2012, Anton Tuitt and/or others threw certain planks of wood from a fourth floor window, hitting and severely injuring the RBG's caretaker, a Mr Tom Jones. This was an indictable offence for which Anton Tuitt was later convicted.
5. On 15 August 2012, RBG served on the Defendant a notice seeking possession under grounds 1 and 2 of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. On 24 August 2012, RBG issued its claim form against the Defendant. On 20 November 2012, the Defendant served a defence in which she put RBG to proof of all the alleged incidents of anti-social behaviour.
6. On