Tenant wins right to sue landlord over claims it failed to tackle ASB
Landlords face new duty due to ASB showdown
Landlords face becoming legally liable for failing to tackle anti-social behaviour on their land after a tenant won a landmark High Court case.
Octavia Housing tenant Terri Brumby has won the right to sue her landlord over claims it failed to take reasonable steps to tackle anti-social behaviour on its land.
The landmark High Court case could pave the way for further claims by tenants who feel their complaints about neighbourhood nuisance have not been properly addressed, the tenant’s lawyer stated.
Ms Brumby launched a civil case at Lambeth County Court in 2008 after Octavia allegedly failed to take action after 11 separate complaints about noisy trespassers, who were not Octavia tenants, in a paved area outside her window. She alleges the housing association had also failed to erect a simple barrier to cordon off the paved area at her request.
Octavia argued that the case should be struck down before even reaching the civil courts because there was no legal basis for the claim.
The High Court this month ruled that the civil case should be allowed to proceed. Octavia must decide whether to appeal by early August.
Octavia’s lawyer argued that there were ‘no reported’ cases of landlords being found liable for failing to physically modify their property to prevent anti-social behaviour.
But Justice Mackay, the judge hearing the case, said the case should proceed. ‘I am satisfied that the liability…of the defendant can, given a favourable view of the evidence, be established.’
Simon Marciniak, one of the tenant’s lawyers and an associate at law firm Miles & Partners, said the ruling would make it easier for other tenants to make similar claims.
‘Visitors to the block caused a problem in the communal areas,’ he said.
He alleged that Octavia had done nothing to mitigate this.
A spokesperson for Octavia Housing said: ‘We are considering the judgment and have not decided whether or not we will appeal.’
The liability for land
Terri Brumby launched her case against Octavia Housing after a four-year saga in which she was allegedly disturbed by a neighbour’s noisy visitors who hung around a hallway, staircase and the area outside her window. Ms Brumby asked Octavia to bar access to this area with a barrier or gate. Octavia’s lawyer said that landlords could be liable for nuisance behaviour of their tenants, but Ms Brumby’s barrister argued that the nuisance was related to the association’s land rather than her neighbours or visitors.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (37)
Anonymous | 23/07/2010 0:38 am
I live in a residential street and we have been blighted by anti social residents for a number of years caused by landlords who have purchased properties in the area. They fill their purchases with drunks, drug addicts and anti social families thus reducing the value of surrounding properties and forcing homeowners out of the area. This enables the landlords to snap up low price dwellings and ruin decent communities. I believe it is time to end this gravy train which is funded by the tax payers in this country because like it or not it is the people drawing welfare that are ruining are communities and we are paying for our own anti social behaviour. The goverment needs to act now and make a bold statement. Landlords should be accountable for their actions because it is the tax payer who is funding this thier businesses.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 23/07/2010 7:12 am
You go girl. Terri Brumby rocks! Let's hope she sues and wins opening the floodgates for more civil claims. The complete failure of RSLs to act on ASB can only be fixed in the courts when they start getting punitive damages for incompetence and failure to act. Regulation has failed; the courts are the only choice left.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 23/07/2010 9:25 am
One of the main reasons of antisocial behaviour increase is the removal of legal aid about housing issues and so denying the right of social tenants without financial means to take their landlords to court.
I am glad Terri Brumby has got this far, I hope she succeeds. Has she got legal aid to pursue her case?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 23/07/2010 9:25 am
One of the main reasons of antisocial behaviour increase is the removal of legal aid about housing issues and so denying the right of social tenants without financial means to take their landlords to court.
I am glad Terri Brumby has got this far, I hope she succeeds. Has she got legal aid to pursue her case?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23/07/2010 9:36 am
Good Luck to Terri Brumby
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 23/07/2010 10:01 am
Without detracting from the campaigning individual - all strength to those who fight and not just spout - I do hope that if the case reaches a conclusion (the case has not been heard but is now allowed to be heard) that part of that conclusion is that policing should be the province of the Police. This also does not detract from if Octavia have failed to act on thier responsibilites as a Landlord then they must be held to account.
The potential interesting spin-offs should Terri win are considerable. For instance MP could put a claim in against Westminster for the irritation of having peace protesters camped outside parliament. Land owners could be sued for Facebook Raves occuring on their land. The Highways Agency could be sued by drivers given the finger by other drivers. We could sue IH every time ILAG spreads anti social lies about immigration. Brilliant - can't wait for the case to conclude.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Miss H | 23/07/2010 10:21 am
Reading the details of this case, the question that springs to mind is: why doesn't any Housing Association actively welcome a suggestion from a tenant to prevent ASB occurring at one of their properties? Don't Octavia Housing want to retain good tenants and deter ASB? If all they were being asked to do was to 'erect a simple barrier' to effectively protect their own investment, why are they so set against it? It can't be cash, as they obviously have enough to fight through the court system.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 23/07/2010 11:18 am
I agree with you, Miss H, but I can tell you Asb is often caused by the landlords creating the conditions for it to flourish and then refusing or denying or lying about doing anything about it. This is to do ladnlords anti-tenant attitude (forget the [rubbish] about them caring) and the basic fact that social tenants are considered second class citizens by thevery people paid with their rent money and taxes to serve them. and we have no power to get them sacked or sent to jail.
Tenants must demand the return of legal aid for their houisng related complaints, so they can take their landlords to court, instead we got to waste years with the complaint procedures and the ombudsman where evben those who win their cases are unsatisfied, let alone those who never get there because the complaint process is made so difficult and unfair
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sharon Crossland | 23/07/2010 11:18 am
I sincerely hope that any positive outcome from this extends to the private sector but its an absolute shame that Ms Brumby has had to fight so hard and for so long to get any glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.
I work in the private sector and the chronic shortage of properties have led to more and more private landlords at the lower end of the market taking on benefit tenants. They are however not prepared to take on the extra managing of their tenants that is sometimes inevitable, when for example they are alcholics or on drugs.
When will landlords wise up to the fact that whether they are local authorites or private individuals, the buck stops with them when it comes to managing the behaviour of their tenants.
They are the parties that enter into the contract after all, with the landlord being dominant.
Kind Regards
Miss Sharon Crossland AIRPM
Leasehold Life
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 23/07/2010 11:39 am
Sharon Crossland makes a number of interesting points. PSLs dont have asb costs, support /customer service costs, (and regulatory costs) yet they still charge the public purse 62% more than social landlords.
Oh it wont pass to private landlords as the case involves public land
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment