Voodoo neighbour given suspended possession order
A housing association has gained a suspended possession order against a tenant whose three-year long vendetta against her neighbour included the use of a voodoo doll.
Tor Homes took the 46-year-old from Kingsbridge in Devon to court following multiple breaches of tenancy, including noise nuisance, recording of her neighbour using CCTV and the use of the voodoo doll.
The tenant had lived in the three-bedroom house for almost seven years. Torquay and Newton Abbott Court heard the anti-social behaviour included leaving a doll with pins stuck in it on the doorstep of their neighbours.
In another incident, a doll, which the judgment in the case said was meant to resemble one of the neighbours, was left hanging by its neck from their fence.
In the judgment, district judge Meredith said that the behaviour of the defendant had ‘been so extreme and so appalling and so deliberate, that it justifies an outright possession order’.
The defendant also left two eggs with a crying face bearing the name of her neighbours’ son on the neighbours’ doorstep.
When the eggs were removed, the defendant reported it to police as theft. The woman also played music so loudly that her neighbours could ‘hear every word of every song’ and a recording revealed that ‘the defendant can be heard singing even louder’.
The tenant claimed that she had been a victim of anti-social behaviour herself.
Tor Homes tenancy enforcement manager Julie Bingham said: ‘Following years of inappropriate and threatening behaviour towards neighbours, we are pleased that justice has been done and that Judge Meredith’s order so clearly identified the sheer maliciousness of the behaviour the victims had endured for so long.
‘We will be monitoring this case closely and will make an emergency application for a further hearing if the order is breached.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (5)
Melvin Bone | 15/04/2010 12:26 pm
So the tenant is still in occupation...
Nice excuse for a story with 'Voodoo' in the title though...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Debbie Davis | 15/04/2010 12:31 pm
Why on earth did it take 3 years for this suspended possession order to be put into place? If these Tenants were so clearly in breach of there Tenancy Agreement over a long period of time and on numerous occasions, it amazes me that they were allowed to get away with it for so long and were not evicted long ago. Yes I do know there is a protocol and rules and regulations that have to be seen to have been tried and tested but 3 years? It makes a mockery of Tenancy Agreements!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 15/04/2010 2:19 pm
Debbie I notice on another post you're berating HA's for not using the tenancy agreements and taking forceful action quicker. The simple answer is, if HA's could, they would. The protocols now in place mean that unless the activities are likely to cause physical injury to the resident then certain hoops etc have to be jumped through. I have no knowledge of the case however, dolls, painted eggs etc don't sound like the actions of a rational person. If the defendant claimed mental health issues, for example then it's massively difficult to get an outright possession as judges are loath to do so due to the vulnerability of the defendant, even if others think they might only be pulling the wool over the eyes of others.
Also "3 Year vendetta" could mean there was an initial incident in Jan 2007 and then a break of a year and one more incident and then a flurry of activity 9 months ago. And as for being able to hear every word of every song played next door, I've lived in places where noise insulation was so poor you could hear peoples conversations next door, never mind music. I'm not defending the defendent hear, merely putting some of your points into context.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kjetilniki | 15/04/2010 2:57 pm
well said by the 3rd man
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jack Davies | 15/04/2010 4:42 pm
Another potential issue here is criminality. The issues as described are all very intimidatory and could be seen as assaults or even a form of stalking. The police have been involved by the perpetrator it seems but not by the victims.
Potential mental health issues I can see but, and its a big but, here we have it being trundled out again and again for every non 'normal' form of behaviour and does this do anythign but take away the real issues faced by the victims of this campaign of hate, and prolonged campaign of hate.
Oh and why does IH name and shame housing staff but not tenants??
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment