Killing verdict spares landlords duty of care
Share
The law lords have ruled that social landlords do not have a duty of care to their tenants, in a case where an elderly man was murdered by his neighbour.
James Mitchell, 72, died after his neighbour James Drummond beat him round the head with a stick in 2001. The attack followed complaints made by Mr Mitchell about Mr Drummond’s behaviour, and a meeting between Mr Drummond and landlord Glasgow Council.
Mr Mitchell’s family took the case to the highest court in the land in an attempt to prove that Glasgow Council should have done more to protect Mr Mitchell – including informing him of its meeting with Mr Drummond. But the Lords ruled against the family.
Cameron Fyfe, a partner at solicitors Ross Harper, who is representing Mr Mitchell’s family, said: ‘The House of Lords view was that the council did not have a duty of care in these circumstances.
‘They felt there wasn’t enough proximity between the council and Mr Mitchell. There wasn’t a close enough relationship between them to be a duty of care.’
Mr Mitchell’s daughter, Karin, said the family would not be taking the case any further.
‘We accept their choices but feel it was financially driven as if it was successful it would have open up floodgates [for claims]’.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (17)
kass | 18/02/2009 4:43 pm
Well, I think this verdict is a shame...
‘They felt there wasn’t enough proximity between the council and Mr Mitchell. There wasn’t a close enough relationship between them to be a duty of care.’...
could someone explain what this really is? I mean what was there needed for a close relationship to exist?
And there was a close relationship does it mean the verdict would have gone the other way or the "open floodgates" argument still would overule it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 18/02/2009 8:27 pm
There is of course the need to read the full judgment when it becomes available - but as I stated when this case was announced to be going to HoL - criminal matters are a POLICE duty not a landlord's (social, private or otherwise) duty.
To attempt to answer Kass's questions - again without seeing sight of the ruling - from memory Glasgow Council had at one time 90,000 + tenants making them far and away the largest landlord in the UK. So the 'open he floodgates' somewhat glib posit is very significant indeed.
Yet, that aside, IF social landlords have a duty of care should private landlords have a duty of care. The answer has to be no- you cannot state a landlord has a duty of care just because it is a council - either a landlord does or doesnot have a duty of care to tenants.
Moreover, criminal matters must remain the duty of the police and not a landlord - after all that is their joband it is NOT the role or remit of landlords and should never be so. Landlords can inform and liaise with police and can even move people away from a place of danger to a place of safety if needed. That last point is a role for landlords in matters of danger (whether council RSLor private -availability of alternate provision excepted).
What landlords must NOT do is be seen as a surrogate or replacement for the police or be responsible for dealing with criminal activities just because they house someone. If they are responsible han all landlords must be similarly responsible.
Frankly, its time the police stopped ignoring its duties by trying to pass on criminal and other activities onto landlords and acted more quickly and took fully THEIR responsibilities and DUTIES
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Savage | 19/02/2009 8:30 am
This case was bound to fail right from the outset, that is the sad reality.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James | 19/02/2009 8:57 am
A tragic case, and our first thoughts should be for the family.
The full transcript was available yesterday, google House of Lords judgements.
Its very wordy, but the point about duty of care was given pretty short shrift compared to discussions on the Human Rights element.
With regard to proximity giving rise to a duty of care, this is more characteristic of a social worker's relationship with their charges, who are supposed to have an active caseload of about 12 people. Housing Officers tend to cover hundreds of homes, and as a result there isn't the same frequency and duration of contact to qualify as proximity.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sharon | 19/02/2009 10:01 am
I too confess to not having read the judgement but obviously the family felt that the council had badly let them down and this is what their case appears to have been based on. The bottom line is everyone should be able to live in their homes without fear becasue if you aren't safe there, where are you safe? I personally feel that Glasgow Council were at the very least morally obliged to do everything they could to resolve the situation, and must have had recourse to mediation between the tenants concerned. I also wonder why the Mitchell family weren't advised of the meeting between Glasgow Council and Mr Drummund? Did this in effect make the situation worse?
I tend to agree with Joe in that you can't really apply a duty of care to one type of landlord and not another but any tenant suffering problems with neighbours has a right to go to their landlord for help and advice. It's heartbreaking that a life should have been lost under circumstances that may have been better handled and my thoughts and sympathies go out to the Mitchell family.
Sharon
Leasehold Life
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen West | 19/02/2009 10:50 am
This is truly an appalling case and now allows Local Authorities and RSL's to house former murderers, rapists, child abusers , sex offenders, drug pushers and users, people with a history of mental illnesses, anti social behaviour problem families , racists and homophobes next door to vulnerable residents and not have a duty of care to protect the lawful resident from the activities of those who may cause them harm. It should not just be the role of the police and courts to protect us, our landlords should consult with residents before moving undesirables next door to residents who would be put at risk.
We have laws to protect child abusers from quite rightly gaining employment which brings them in to direct contact with children, but is this ruling now saying its ok for Local Authorities, RSL's and private landlords to allow them to move next door to a home with children in or next door to a school or nursery.
Is this ruling now saying that it is ok to allow a person with convictions for racist attacks to live next door to a black family.
At last the lunatics are running the asylums
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Staci Riddell | 19/02/2009 1:29 pm
James Mitchell was my grandad and I feel that the verdict was not good enough. No one wants to take blame for it. My mum and aunts and uncles have been left without a dad and my cousins and I have no grandad. To top it off though my gran has no husband. All of this for us has been lost and all we wanted was to have someone stand up and say ' we accept blame'. What Drummond done to the family has had a knock on effect and yes Drummond was responsible but surely someone could have forewarned my granda what was going to happen.
I didn't keep my hopes up for long for this for fear of having them dashed but the disappointment of the verdict is still strong. I pray to god that nobody goes through what we have. And that somehow some good can come of this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 19/02/2009 4:59 pm
Let me clarify my view to avoid any misunderstanding.
Should a landlord have the 'responsibility' to notify police about a crime or likely crime such a threats of violence? - The answer is yes of course they should do this.
Q. Should and is a landlord have a mandatory legal duty of care to do this? The answer has to be no.
Criminal activities or threats HAVE to be the duty of the police and no-one else to deal with.
Of course this matter is a tragedy and lessons will be learnt from this - but hopefully by both the landlord and more importantly by the police. As I've stated I donr know the facts here but the landlord should have notified the police if they felt he was at risk of danger from this neighbour.
Yet my biggest fear that should be shared by all is the apparent increasingly neligent attitude of the police. Remeber when police never used to get involved in DV by saying it was a 'domestic' incident? That was many years ago thanfully and times and police responses have rightly changed. Yet that same wrong attitude is commonplace with police in terms of anti-social behaviour / ASBOs - briefly they try to palm this off as a (social) landlord responsibility and not what it is - a police matter. That indifference needs to change.
My initial point about applying to all landlords comes to play here as well. Are private landlords responsible for dealing with ASB in the same way as councils and RSLs? No they are not - Why? Surely a landlord is a landlord. Or by extension are building societies responsible for the behaviour of owner occupiers. No they are not. Just as (social) landlords shouldnt have a duty of care they should also not have responsibility for dealing with ASB - that is also a police matter.
Even if one disagrees with that principle look at the practical side of it. A Housing Officer has 300 - 500 properties and so if each has 2 people in it - potentially 1000 persons to 'police' for anti-social behaviour' - That exposes the nonsense of having HOs in a secondary or even primary 'policing' role that currently exists and should be removed.
One final point - and speaking not as a tenant - If I was a tenant on a run-down housing estate (forgive the lbelling but the point is illustrative) would I have more confidence in the police or my local HO to resolve ASB? - Enough said!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jerome Wright | 19/02/2009 5:57 pm
I think the Council had a duty of care however that it was under the auspices of their role as a landlord.
As a council they are responsible for ensuring that people are afforded appropriate protection by the police and that's where they failed.
A well trained council should under those circumstance have passed the case of threatening behaviour directly to the police and allowed them make recommendations regarding rehousing or moving Mr Drummond.
I think it is crucial that terms have strict and well defined boundaries and duties, and think that the parallel between the various types of landlords are crucial for clarity and understand of those rights and responsibilities. As such, since a Private landlord would have no power to control the actions of a neighbour, it's important that all forms of landlord rely on the law enforcement agencies to ensure the safety not only of the tenant but of the landlord as well.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tim | 20/02/2009 2:18 pm
Could I suggest to Stephen West that he draws breath and reflects a little before sitting in front of a keyboard again. Of course this case is appalling but his ill informed coments add nothing to what should be a debate which is aimed at learning the lessons and finding the means to minimise the risk of anyone else suffering as Mr Mitchell did and the consequent loss and grief of his family, to whom I would also add my condolences.
Does he really believe that the risk posed by the groups of serious offenders he lists is mitigated if they are not living in social housing? Of course it isn't and to suggest that housing providers routinely ignore their responsibilities to the community is frankly insulting to those housing professionals who daily play their part in partnership risk management with the Police, Probation and other agencies to minimise the risk to the the wider community.
His comaprison between "people with a history of mental illness" and the serious offenders he lists is also offensive. Around a quarter of the population will suffer with mental health problems at some point in their life and are themselves often the "vulnerable neighbour"; let's hope Mr West is one of the lucky seventy five per cent and does not have to face the kind of prejudice and ignorance his posting displays.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 20/02/2009 5:58 pm
" Alan Savage | Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:30 GMT
"Alan Savage | Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:30 GMT
This case was bound to fail right from the outset, that is the sad reality...."
I agree with Alan Savage that the propsects were not good from the start... But that's why I think the Mitchell family action to take this to the House of the Lords is greatly admirable.... They could have just stood silent in their mourning. Instead by taking this action - no doubt at great emotional cost to themselves - the family have kept the debate about this issue in the limelight and hopefully going for some time for the rest of us... And even if the powers that be are never going to take any notice or change anything - at least they cannot say they did not know when the next tragic case comes along... For this alone I am very thankful to the Mitchell family
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Carol | 20/02/2009 6:31 pm
I wish to comment on Stephen Wests comment about people with mental illness - the perceived 'lunatics'. As a worker in the field of mental illness I would like to point out the distinction between 'bad' people in our society and the assumed 'mad'. We support a lot of people who suffer with depression and anxiety often caused by a significant loss in their lives for example bereavement. The stigma society holds around mental illness is such that often seemingly risky people only enter services in crisis because they are afraid of the 'label'. What happened to Mr Mitchell was horrific but lets not confuse the perpertrator of such offences with what are invairably very vulnerable members of our society.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 23/02/2009 11:07 am
Jerome writes that "...(a) council are responsible for ensuring people are afforded appropriate protection by the police..."
I strongly disagree with that view.
If someone is threatened that is a criminal matter - and specifically people are not threatened because they happen to be in a house, or in house A, B or C.
Why the need for recourse to the council at all? Why do social housing tenants turn firstly to the council and not to the police? That is the real question here and one of tenant expectations over common sense. This is a mentality that needs to change. The "he's threatened me so I'll get the council to evict him" smacks of retribution not resolution. The "well the council put him there they can bloody well remove the problem" mentality is perverse. If the person threatening was a private tenant of an owner occupier would one complain to the private landlord or the mortgage company. Of course not so why complaint to the landlord with a criminal matter?
Yet because landlords are know to have a role with anti-social behaviour, then tenants do turn to landlords and councils rather than to the police. This is a direct by-product of the ridiculous policy initiative to have housing officers deal with ASB - something they should not have a role in. (Perversely, landlords can do more to help once a police log of the complaint has been made - and this shows the nonsense about first turning to the landlord rather than the police.)
Yet persuading the police to make a report and investigate is far more difficult than making a complaint to the landlord, as the police often dont want to bother with the paperwork. So tenants opt for the easier option - that is also the weakest option for tenants.
The system is failing because of the unwillingness of the police to get involved and get involved in a proactive / preventative way - that is where efforts and complaints need to be made. Dont we all have a human right expectation to be afforded protection by the police? And this is a far higher expectation and right than to be afforded protection by a council.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 23/02/2009 5:39 pm
" Joe Halewood | Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:07 GMT The system is failing because of the unwillingness of the police to get involved and get involved in a proactive / preventative way - that is where efforts and complaints need to be made. Dont we all have a human right expectation to be afforded protection by the police? And this is a far higher expectation and right than to be afforded protection by a council.."
Tenants are extremely confused about where and who to go to help to/for.... Everytime I report threatening behaviour and harassment to the police, they tell me to go the housing Association and when I go to the Housing Association they tell me to go to the police... And none of them doing anything effective to really solve the situation... The victim then has to complain against the Housing Association for not getting effective help from them and then also has to complain against the police for not getting effective help from them either... And it ends up with the victim threatened by antisocial neighbours and with those meant to help him/her (police/landlord) being very hostile for having complained against them... There you are, a victim is made three times a victim by the system... I just cannot accept that, like in Mr Mitchell's case, someone is threatened by an antisocial neighbours, it is reported various times- and all the Lords can come up with is a ruling which apportions no blame to anyone. So who should have been protecting him then?... Why there was/is not a law to protect Mr Mitchell (or us) in similar curcumstances?... The Lords are saying to all those who live everyday under such threats that they have no choice but to go on doing so because, in the end, no one is going to be blamed for their situation... Joe Halewood quite rightly says people should complain... What he might not know by those who have been through complaints procedures is that these procedures are so lengthy, complicated, punishing, that in the process ruin the lives of the complainants mentally, socially, a working life and the rest of it... And what for? The greatest majority the results of complaints get you nowhere anyway - because you still will be dealing with the people who did not help in the first place - and how much more do you think they are going to help?... So who is going to complain?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Karin mitchell | 25/02/2009 11:03 am
I am Karin Mitchell, daughter of James Mitchell, I would firstly like to say thanks to everyone who has supported our family through what has been the hardest past 8 years of our lives after the loss of my dad. We really appreciate the kind words of all the people that have expressed their feelings and opinions on what have been a tragic and horrific time for us. My poor father suffered for 8 years prior to his death, this anti-social neighbour he had made his life a misery, and my dad done everything BY-THE-BOOK,as advised by Glasgow City Council, he sought help from The Local Housing Office, The police, MSP's,M.P's, Solicitors and even had CCTV installed at his own expense , he could not have done any more, YET despite doing all of this over an 8 year time scale, he got NO help!!! Glasgow City Council COULD and indeed SHOULD have dealt with this matter long before my dads death in order to keep it under control, but they never,They simply chose to ignore it hopeing it would just go away.Why did the GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL advise my dad on what to do, ie; keepnig a journal of everything times and dates, how and where to report it etc....... if they were not going to act on it. Surley 8 years of suffering this type of abuse is too much for anyone to take. Drummond had a previous history of this kind of behaviour in other tennancies he had with the GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL, so they knew what kind of ANIMAL this man was,this was not new news to them, yet they still did nothing to help. Of course they have some blame in my dad's death, they knew what was going on,they knew of the death threats, one of which was " if i loose my house il cave mitchell's f****** head in ", surley knowing this the housing office should have warned my father, especially when Drummond got abusive and violent towards the Housing Officer who held the meeting to tell him about the forthcomeing possible eviction,yet they still did NOTHING!! AND WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF LEAVING THEIR OFFICE HE ATTACKED MY DAD SO BADLY HE LOST HIS LIFE, EXACTLY HOW HE THREATENED HE WOULD. I am really proud that we fought our case so hard and obviously with it reaching The House Of Lords we had a really strong case or it would never have gotten that far in the first place. Even though the judgement never went in our favour, we dont regret doing it for a minute, it has been a well worth cause to fight for, at least now, Landlords everywhere might stop and think before they ignore peole who are suffering from ANTI-SOCIAL behaviour like my parents did, they might get help and put an end to the suffering that is caused by Anti-social neighbours.We were hopeing that had we won, that the legislation regarding duty of care would have changed things for the better and this would enable the Landlords to protect people from the very thing that has taken my dad's life, and ruined all of our family's life in the process. My dad was a lovely, kind community minded man, he is sadly missed, our family hope that some good will come from all that has happened,as i have said many times before, MY DAD CANT HAVE DIED FOR NOTHING!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
diamonds | 24/10/2009 5:24 pm
I sympathesised with the family. I was a victim of harrassment which led to arson attempt on my life.. my girlfriend being assualted, yet the landlord did nothing ata ll but to deny all events! Landlords are quick to take the rent but slow to take action against culprits
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 26/10/2009 9:39 am
Diamonds - im sure that event must have been horrendous. Yet one simple question - Why did you expect the landlord to act on a criminal matter and not the police?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment