Appeal court ruling gives encouragement for use of starter tenancy schemes, lawyers say

A Court of Appeal ruling this week has provided encouragement to housing associations to continue with their starter tenancy schemes, it has been claimed.

The Court dismissed an appeal by Jack Haycraft, a tenant of West Kent Housing Association, against a possession order.

West Kent had issued mandatory possession proceedings in the case, after concluding that Haycraft had failed his probationary starter tenancy. This followed complaints about his behaviour shortly after he signed up for the tenancy in May 2009.

He claimed that the possession order was not a proportionate response to the complaints and so a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Haycraft argued that the courts rather than his landlord should decide the truth of the allegations, which he disputed. He used West Kent’s internal review procedure to put forward his arguments.

However, a review panel decided that the incidents had taken place and it was reasonable and appropriate to end Haycraft’s tenancy.

A notice requiring possession under s. 21 of the Housing Act 1988 was served, with proceedings commencing in June 2010.

The original order for possession was made at Dartford County Court in October that year and confirmed on appeal before His Honour Judge Simpkiss in February 2011.

Lord Justice Neuberger, delivering the main judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluded that West Kent had properly investigated the allegations and that these were found to have been established in a well reasoned manner.

The judge also said HHJ Simpkiss was entitled to decide that Haycraft had failed to put a strong enough case forward to justify a full hearing on the proportionality of the possession order.

Hardwicke barrister Andy Lane, who acted for West Kent throughout the case, said: “Nobody disputes that it is important that a tenant’s right to respect for their home is protected by the courts, and in my experience the social housing sector appreciates this as much as anyone.

“But that protection must extend in anti-social behaviour cases, such as here, to the victims of such incidents and proper regard has to be had to a landlord’s genuine and reasonable attempts to consider such rights prior to taking possession proceedings. This decision will encourage housing associations to pursue good internal review procedures and continue their starter tenancy schemes.”

Daniel Skinner, Head of Social Housing at Batchelors and West Kent’s solicitor in the dispute, said: “This case is important for [housing associations] because it shows that their starter tenancy schemes can be effective where they are not happy with a tenant’s conduct. Cases can be won without having to face the time and expense of lengthy trials even if the tenant disputes the allegations.”

Skinner claimed that the Article 8 defence was over-used and not always dealt with properly by the courts.

“We would hope that this decision will encourage courts to identify those minority of cases early where they should fully investigate the question of proportionality, as opposed to the much greater number where they can be dealt with on a summary basis,” he added.