Domestic violence ruling overturns eviction ban
Share
Perpetrators of domestic violence can be evicted even if they have moved out of a property and split up with their partner, a court has ruled.
The Court of Appeal overturned a Croydon County Court decision last week, which had stopped Metropolitan Housing Trust taking possession of a four-bedroom home in Thornton Heath, Surrey.
Tenant Djilali Hadjazi had been awarded costs against the housing association after he claimed he could not be evicted under ground 14A of the Housing Act 1988, for domestic violence.
Although, he moved out in 2006 he continued to come back to the property and was violent towards his wife, including trying to strangle and kill her.
The violence was so severe she was forced to flee the property in November 2007 on the advice of social services.
In December 2007 Mr Hadjazi returned to live in on his own at the property. Metropolitan started trying to evict him in January 2008.
However his lawyer, Jan Luba, argued he could not be evicted using ground 14A because he was not living at the property or together with his wife when the violence occurred.
This was backed by the county court, a ruling which the appeal court judge said ‘defies common sense’.
At the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Mummery said: ‘Why should the timing of departure from the property by the victim of the violence make any difference to the availability of that ground of possession to the landlord?
‘Why should the perpetrator of the violence be protected against the ground because the violence did not drive the victim out of the property until after the perpetrator of continuing violence has left?
‘Violence by one person in a relationship that causes the other person in the relationship to leave the property is in substance the same inhuman conduct with the same human consequences, whether or not they were still living together at date of the victim’s departure.’
Solicitor Simon Bagg, from the housing litigation team at Lewis Silkin, said: ‘Had this gone through, any partner or violent partner that had left and carried on being violent to their ex-partner could not be evicted under 14A’.
The case now has to go back to county court where it will be decided if Metropolitan has ‘reasonable grounds’ for evicting Mr Hadjazi.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (4)
Anonymous | 08/07/2010 1:42 pm
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/750.html
The above is the direct link to the judgment and its readable unlike many judgments to the lay person and its also quite short too.
One quick thought came to my mind while reading. The property was in Mr Hadjazi's name and was not a joint tenancy. The homelessness team and social services were involved in the time when his wife and children left yet there is no mention of MHT (the landlord) involvement.
Given that the tenant (Mr Hadjazi) had obviously left the property for over 12 months and Mrs Hadjazi and the children remained there, why didnt MHT seek to transfer the property into her name then?
That would have prevented this action now and allowed Mrs Hadjazi to return to the property once any restraining orders etc had been done. It would also have enabled the landlord to change the locks and prevent his entry to commit further DV. And saved the landlord a huge amount in costs of this action now which is both too little too late and seems primarily driven by his underoccupation and not his appalling actions.
It may be that the council homeless department and social service did not involve MHT thoroughly in their decision making or consider this option - unfortunately all too typical.
Now the case has been referred back to the county court which means its decision can in theory still be appealled to the HC, CoA and the Supreme Court before this matter is finally decided. In the meantime the vile perpetrator remains at the 4 bed property.
This also means that the High Court has NOT ruled that "Perpetrators of domestic violence can be evicted even if they have moved out of a property and split up with their partner," - as the first line here states - rather it has intimidated that albeit strongly but referred it back to the lower court.
Bizarre and seemingly avoidable!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 08/07/2010 3:17 pm
The suggestion that the tenancy be transferred into Mrs Hadjazi's name is ludicrous. Just because the tenancya nd locks have been changed wouldn't have prevented ehr form being assaulted by Mr. If sonmeone is determibned enough they could wait for her to come out of the property or follow form school when collecting the children ect to attack her, the best option was the one she took, which was to flee the property and I hope she has a new property away from this beast.
There are far too many people critisizing housing associations (usually tenants) but they are happy to claim the associated benefits that come with a social housing tenancy, namely cheap rent and security of tenure. If they are not happy wth the service they are provided with then they should go and rent in the private sector where they wil find it alot more expensive and get a much poorer service.
What the county court were thinking in backing this and awarding damages beyond comprehension, if anyone ahs been "damaged" by this situation is the family and not him. lets hope they make the right decision at the next hearing!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Capaloff | 08/07/2010 4:40 pm
The point, anonymous, is not that a perpetrator of domestic violence would be prevented from further acts of violence by having his name removed from the tenancy. I would hope that no one here would be naive enough to suggest that this might be so. The importance of this decision, which will hopefully be continued to be upheld in the higher courts, is that the perpetrator of the violence should not benefit from his acts thereafter, by having sole access to the tenancy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 09/07/2010 12:38 pm
I agree changing locks wouldnt or may not have prevented further violence. The further violence happened after all without this tenancy or lock change. Or is the point that removing his name would have prevente further acts either.
The points are also not the very easy and superficial ones that why should the victim pay by being removed etc.
My point here has a number of elements. Firstly, why wait for court action to transfer the tenancy - the perp left the tenancy and could be presumed to have abandoned it. Secondly and linked as he has a major cancer condition he is likely to have been incapable of work and on HB. Therefore how was the rent on the property paid and by whom?
Transferring the tenancy after he had left would have allowed the rent to have been paid by HB on behalf of Mrs Hadjazi as well as her temporary accommodation too. While this ws ongoing all parties (SSD and housing and Police and DV agencies?) could have souht the necessary legal injunctions (sanctuary scheme, MARAC noted etc) to keep him away from the property and his wife and children.
That combined action would have stopped the further violence and allowed the victim and her children (also victims) to have stayed in the property.
As an aside it only appears after the (horendous) facts that the landlod sought possession and after the further damage had been done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment