Southend-On-Sea Borough Council v Armour
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN
- LORD JUSTICE LEWISON
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Human Rights Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Armour, an introductory tenant, faced possession proceedings due to antisocial behavior. The Recorder ruled against possession on proportionality grounds, considering his mental health and personal improvements. The council's appeals were dismissed, upholding the Recorder’s discretion and judgment.
Judgment
Lord Justice Lewison:
The issue
The main issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial judge applied an insufficiently rigorous test in deciding that the making of a possession order against a tenant under an introductory tenancy was not proportionate.
The facts
Mr Armour became the weekly tenant of 35 Bewley Court, Whittingham Avenue in Southend-on-Sea with effect from 31 January 2011, although the tenancy agreement was signed on 25 January and he moved in on that day. The tenancy agreement informed him that:
“Your tenancy will begin as an introductory tenancy. It will become a secure tenancy after one year; unless you have broken the conditions of your introductory tenancy.”
Almost immediately a neighbour complained about having been sworn at and threatened, in consequence the housing managers wrote to him on 4 February 2011. The letter said that it would be treated as a one off incident, but emphasised that antisocial behaviour was taken very seriously; and that any further complaint would be investigated very fully. A month later on 3 March 2011 Mr Armour had a telephone conversation with a member of the contact team, the ostensible purpose of which was to rearrange an appointment to deal with a defective boiler. He was rude and aggressive on the phone, and alleged that the boiler was illegal. The team member was left feeling upset and personally responsible. On that same day Mr Armour was sent another letter saying that his abusive behaviour towards a member of staff was “totally unacceptable”. The third incident took place a few weeks later on 31 March 2011. Electricians had arrived at Mr Armour’s flat following the stripping out of the kitchen ready for electrical works to take place. They said that Mr Armour had been abusive to them. They also alleged that Mr Armour had turned on the electricity after they had turned it off in order to carry out the works, in consequence of which one of the workmen received an electric shock. The electricians also alleged that Mr Armour had sworn at them and been abusive.
The immediate consequence of these three incidents was that Southend-on-Sea BC as landlord served Mr Armour notice of possession proceedings alleging, by reference to these three incidents, that Mr Armour had been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause nuisance or annoyance. The notice said that court proceedings would not be begun until after 2 May 2011; and in the meantime advised Mr Armour of his right to request a rev