Important Clarification at Last
In City West Housing Trust v Massey and Manchester & District HA v Roberts  EWCA Civ 704 the Court of Appeal has set out some non-prescriptive guidance on how courts should exercise the discretion to suspend immediate orders for possession (‘SPOs’). In two conjoined appeals from the county court, it permitted second appeals in order (i) to clear up uncertainty in the way the discretion is exercised when a tenant’s evidence is found to be untrue (in whole or part) and (ii) to consider whether, in granting an SPO, the court should impose conditions that burden a landlord or another third party (so-called ‘external factors’). Both cases involved the illegal growing of cannabis.
The CA held that, before making an SPO, the court must be satisfied that there is a sound basis for hope that the tenant will cease his previous conduct and observe the terms of the tenancy in future. Without it a landlord is entitled to possession. The court should therefore hear evidence which can be tested. The evidence must be cogent (not just credible, but persuasive) with a focus on the future and not the past. Evidence of future action by third parties might, in appropriate circumstances, form part of the assessment (eg, tenants with mental health issues whose future compliance is more likely with external support). The court should not expect social landlords or (say) the police to do more than is reasonable. But some landlords may wish to inspect their premises as an ordinary incident of checking their housing stock. Dishonest evidence is no bar to making an SPO if cogent evidence offers a real hope that the tenancy will in future be respected. But tenants who lie run the risk that their assurances as to the future may be disbelieved.
The court rejected a check-list approach, but commended a 2-stage approach of fact-finding followed by the exercise of discretion. Matters such as co-operation with HA’s and prosecuting authorities, honesty and full disclosure of previous inappropriate behaviour, genuine remorse, early acceptance of culpability and the length of time the illegal activity took place all have a part to play. Courts should give reasons for their decision.
Derek Kerr / 8th Jul 2016
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.
If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:
Alternatively you can send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.