Landlord drops Weaver test case
Share
A case that was expected to test whether housing associations are public bodies will not come to court after the landlord withdrew its action.
Catalyst Communities Housing Association was seeking possession against Corinne Hart, who was a shared owner with the 11,000-home landlord, over allegations of nuisance and damage to property, which she denies.
At a preliminary hearing at the High Court, Ms Hart’s lawyers were due to argue that Catalyst is a public body and has breached article six of the Human Rights Act 1998.
But last week the housing association decided to drop the court case in favour of an injunction against Ms Hart. A spokesperson for Catalyst said court action could have taken four years to reach a conclusion, while an injunction would resolve the issue more quickly.
Steve Chapman, leaseholder and new tenures manager for Catalyst, said: ‘We have repeatedly asked that the property be returned to its original condition so that the nuisances to neighbours are ended. As yet, Ms Hart has refused to do so.
‘As a result we are now seeking an injunction as this is likely to gain the quickest solution for the neighbours who have been subject to severe disruptions as a result of Ms Hart’s actions.’
Ms Hart’ solicitor, David Dunne at Chambers, Rutland and Crauford, said he was disappointed that the legal team would not be able to offer the arguments about the housing association’s status in court.
Social landlords had hoped the case could contest a separate judgement involving London & Quadrant tenant Susan Weaver, in which the Court of Appeal ruled that housing associations are public bodies for certain purposes.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (1)
Anonymous | 17/06/2010 12:01 pm
If the injuction has the desired effect then this seems a sensible decision and the landlord is to be applauded for adopting this course of action.
Yet what deeply concerns is the comment that "...court action could have taken four years to reach a conclusion"
It seems bizarre that Weaver holds sway in that it was a case finally decided on an unreal situation - Weaver was not a party to it - and hence a theoretical judgment. So why cant we have a de facto theoretical judgment that decides on whether HAs are public bodies once and for all?
If, as Weaver implies, we must assume at least 51% that HAs are public bodies for the purposes of the HRA, then to have that assumption and working assumption based on a theoretical case is truly a nonsense.
When we add in the comment above that it could take 4 years to decide one must ask what HA landlord is going to take the huge cost and risk of such an action to clarify this seminal point once and for all?
It is in everyones interests (tenant, landlord, government) for this seemingly simple lay question of whther HAs are public bodies or not and yet the status quo is based on a theoretical case that perversely penalises good tenants as the bad ones will surely cite HRA to block any eviction and no landlord will have the resources or take the risk to challenge that.
The situation is a joke and a charter for bad tenants to continue with their ASB / non-payment of rent / or do as they bloody well please will little chance of the law or the landlord being able to change or correct such behaviours
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment