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]’.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
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