Final decision

In this case, Mr Pinnock appealed against a possession order which had been made. He had lived at the property with his partner and children for 30 years.

A demotion order was made after there had been a number of anti-social incidents by Mr Pinnock’s family either on or near the property.

The landlord then sought possession relying on two further anti-social behaviour incidents by Mr Pinnock’s sons. An internal review took place which supported the ending of the tenancy.

The Court of Appeal held that it would be inconsistent with the scheme already in place relating to demoted tenancies to scrutinise the landlord’s decision. The Court of Appeal found that, given that a lower court would have already have found it reasonable to make a demotion order, the Administrative Court should be very cautious when changing the decision to obtain possession.

It also held that it was not necessary to prove a breach of the tenancy agreement to obtain possession. The landlord’s decision and the court’s view was that the reasons could be anything relevant to the landlord’s management of its housing estate arising and becoming known after the date of the demotion order.

This case illustrates that, where possession of a demoted tenancy is sought, the court has no jurisdiction to consider anything except procedure, if the substance or rationality of the landlord’s decision has already been scrutinised by a lower court.

Sian Evans is head of property litigation at Weightmans LLP
sian.evans@weightmans.com

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment