Pinnock family evicted after legal battle
The family at the centre of a landmark court ruling have been evicted after a six-year battle.
Cleveland Pinnock has been evicted from his house in Manchester following a catalogue of crime and nuisance behaviour carried out by his sons, even though he was sole tenant of the property.
Mr Pinnock’s partner, Christine Walker, has also been evicted.
Manchester Council tried to repossess Mr Pinnock’s house in 2005 on the basis that Mr Pinnock’s children and his partner, but not Mr Pinnock himself, had caused a serious nuisance. In 2007, the council successfully applied for an order demoting the tenancy, meaning that he was no longer a secure tenant.
Following further problems, the council applied for a possession order to evict the family, which Manchester County Court granted in December 2008.
Mr Pinnock then appealed against this possession order, citing his human rights.
In July 2009, the Court of Appeal upheld Manchester County Court’s decision to grant Manchester Council possession of the property. Mr Pinnock then appealed to the Supreme Court, but it upheld the possession order.
In the judgement, delivered last November, the Supreme Court ruled courts must test the proportionality of a landlord’s decision to carry out mandatory possession proceedings, meaning a court will take into account a tenant’s personal circumstances. Although this did not affect the outcome of the Pinnock case, it is already having an impact on other hearings.
Geoff Little, Manchester Council’s deputy chief executive, said: ‘The family of Cleveland Pinnock have blighted the community over many years and the community should be relieved that we have now successfully evicted them. The council is committed to ensuring that its tenants do not have to suffer the misery of anti-social and criminal behaviour.
‘He has tried to use the courts to block the process at every step of the way, but we were always clear that we were right to evict him, and we welcome the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld our decision.’