Mitchell killing case reaches House of Lords
A Scottish family’s bid to force landlords to act on anti-social behaviour complaints has reached the highest court in the country.
The Mitchell family arrived at the House of Lords yesterday for the two day hearing which will determine whether landlords have a duty of care to protect their tenants.
The court will consider whether the family of James Mitchell, a Glasgow Council tenant killed by his neighbour in 2001, should be allowed to sue the authority.
The family’s lawyers yesterday claimed that the council had been aware of a history of the threatening and aggressive behaviour towards Mr Mitchell by his neighbour and that he had claimed that he would kill Mr Mitchell if he was evicted.
He carried out the threat shortly after a meeting with the council at which the possibility of his eviction for anti-social behaviour towards Mr Mitchell was discussed.
His wife and daughter claimed that the council owed both Mr Mitchell and his family a duty to take eviction proceedings against the neighbour within a reasonable time of the complaints about his behaviour being made and to warn Mr Mitchell that the meeting with his neighbour was taking place.
Papers before the law lords yesterday put the case briefly and simply. ‘Under what circumstances can there be liability under the common law of negligence or the European Convention on Human Rights for the criminal acts of a third party?’ the papers ask.
The legal argument focuses on complex case law and also on the question of documentation and access to documentation in the case.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (7)
kass | 09/12/2008 2:51 pm
I think the family should have the right to sue the authority/council in this case. They were made fully aware of the situation and did not act with the necessary professionality and sensitivity demanded. I tend to see the real responsible for such tragedies the authority/housing association or the directorship in question. They also should be charged with allllowing the killing to take place.
Were not for their negligence and had they acted promtly most of these tragvedies would never happen. But they let such situations to go on and on for years and years thinking it will go away by itself - until eventually one of the parties involved does something drastic - like a murder or commit suicide.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
P Doherty | 11/12/2008 1:59 pm
We seem to live in a world where some people always seek to blame someone for everything, bad things happen. Having dealt with neighbour nuisance cases over 20 years there is very rarely a simple solution nor a speedy solution.
To suggest that the Local Authority can be sued for the criminal act of murder by another as in this case is a Pandora’s box of claims against Local Authorities (L.A) and other Landlords. Most Council Officers/staff seek to carry out their jobs to the best of their ability and to add the possibility of further prosecution for the illegal acts of others will be a solicitors dream and undoubtedly increase beaurocracy within Local Authorities.
No doubt this case is being brought as a no win no fee claim by the solicitors in the hope of increasing Solicitors business. If the L..A. acted incorrectly then discipline the staff concerned and offer an apology and learn from the error.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 13/12/2008 11:20 am
P. DOHERTY, If you re-read my previous post you'll find no one is suggesting that most staff in most organizations (housing. police, education, army, etc) try their best. But when nigtmarish situations are let to go on for decades (which means a whole host of officers and managers must surely have known about it up to the directors) with most of these situations ending with some kind of tragedy (murders, suicides, stabbings, etc) disciplining only the staff concerned (the last staff on the case or all the staff concerned dating back to let's say twenty years earlier?) and giving an apology cannot possibly satisfy any sense of justice for the victims families and friends in particular and it's very odd to the general public too that accountability in these cases does not bring about a penalty for who is running the service. It also means that similar errors are more than likely to reoccur because the directorate is unlikely to change in its habits even with new recommendations in place. I strongly believe that where such cases (ongoing for long time and the services have known about them all along) end up in tragedies the directors should be tried for manslaughter (corporate or similar)...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen Mitchell | 19/12/2008 7:41 pm
P.Doherty I can see that you have no idea what we (the Mitchell family) are looking for. We blame Drumond for the murder of my father. We are looking to make L.A's or Housing associations a little more responsible for the antisocial tenants they place in houses. We do not think that councils of housing associations can deal with this issue on their own, that’s why they have partnerships with other agencies like the Police. In this case Glasgow Council placed Drumond in a house knowing he had been an antisocial neighbour in the past. When he started to abuse my parents, the Council asked my father to report the matter to the Police and to keep a log so that they had evidence of Drumond's behaviour and could build a case to evict him. At this stage the Council started to provide a duty of care. The Council held several meetings with Drumond regarding his behaviour and kept my father informed of their actions prior to every meeting. Drumond threatened to cave my dads skull in if he was evicted, a threat which Glasgow Council was aware of. At the final meeting when Drumond was to be evicted the Council failed to inform my father of their actions, even after Drumond became aggressive at the meeting. Drumond walked out of the meeting and caved my father's skull in as he had threatened. We are arguing that the Council could have easily foreseen the potential risk to my father and that they could have minimised the risk by simply keeping my father informed of their intentions. at no stage have we said that the council personally could have stopped it. The onus would then have been on my father, who could have contacted the Police or kept a low profile. During the Judicial review the Lords spoke of Forceeability & proximity and whether any action the council could have taken would have been reasonable. We argued that the Council could have foreseen the risk as they were in possession of CCTV evidence of Drummonds threats and that the fact that they were neighbours, the proximity of Drumond and my father was an important issue. As for reasonable, we feel that this could have been prevented by letter or phone call to my father. As the Council had done this in the past, we feel that It would have been reasonable to do this prior to the final meeting. As for the business of suing. The family are not interested in the money that they could possibly win if successful, unfortunately this is the only way to make organisation sit up and take notice. No amount of money in the world could make up for the loss of a wonderful husband, father and Grandfather
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 23/12/2008 4:19 pm
I hope the Mitchell family finds justice... I hope that even in tragedy some good will come out of this case. An outcome I would like very much to see is that it would set a precedent that if any neighbour/tenant assaults or threaten to kill this is will be taken with the outmost seriousness by the police, council/social landlord and any other organisations connected... if a neighbour assaults another or threatens to kill another and has been reported and nothing effective has been done to make the vicgtim a hundred per cent save I would insist that either the police commander, or the council executives, etc be also made personally responsible in some way. Let's not kid ourselves, these tragedies will never stop until those at the very top will be made personally responsible. They should not be allowed to think of these immense tragedies as just another incident in our daily routine.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr Kevin Reape-Moore | 08/02/2009 11:46 pm
This case is very said, that Mr Mitchell paid the ultimate price, his life. The human right act states one has the right to life, this did not help Mr Mitchell, as the necessary authorities hide behind holes in the statute books, that is they don't owe a duty of care in this matter to tenants. Do the authorities hold the heads in shame, no they clamber and manoeuvre like vultures to protect their industry from “duty of care” that should be afforded to all tenants in the social housing sector.
I have personally been a victim of anti-social behaviour that lasted 7 years, in the end my family was forced to move out of area to start a new life. When I requested my housing file under a DPA and kept diary sheets for seven years, none of my complaints were investigated. On one occasion a neighbour threatened to shot my wife in the head, the police could not take action as the comment was not made face to face , but made in a door way! Yes this was reported to the RSL, you guessed it no action or investigation.
There are too many cases of anti-social behaviour in social housing, it is time to prevent another tragedy, this is my wish list for social housing:
1.Duty of care in all aspect of social housing.
2.RSLs be made public bodies.
3.Social housing must follow policies & procedure as a requirements of duty of care.
4.All managing directors are voted in to a fixed term by their tenants.
5.All policies & procedure are available on their web sites.
6.The regulators for social housing to make public a database that list by postcode and house number, the Decent Home Standard for the property.
7.All letters to a named tenant must be signed by the sender – documentation traceability & accountability – no electronic signatures pasted into documents.
8.Minimum fine imposed by the housing ombudsman for maladministration £5000 to max £50000 based on a published criteria.
As Mr Mitchell case shows there is a need for a duty of care in the social housing sector, or more importantly accountability be it corporate or individual. If some thing goes wrong its either the policies/procedure or an individual by their action or omissions are accountable. In Mr Mitchell case I firmly believe it was both, as Mr Mitchell had a right to life. But why are so many RSLs and local authorities against it. If duty of care is afforded to the social housing sector, it will give all their tenants access to legal representation, and thus can take advantage of civil law. Moreover, the body corporate, an individual member of staff, or both could be regarded as negligent in their duties. Cases of negligence, if proved have higher penalties, prison terms or large compensation claims, or both.
The social housing sector may argue that duty of care has the potential to bankrupt the sector. No, tenants would be protected as the social housing sector would carry out its duties as required, they will no longer ignore anti-social behaviour, and follow their policies & procedure that are in place to facilitate their duties, with the full knowledge that they are accountable for their actions or omissions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
D Hagen | 21/02/2009 11:36 pm
I totally agree that councils should definetly take responsibility in tragic situations like this ,i am also in a situation where my husband was murdered in november even though i repeatedly filled in anti social log books against this family ,i feel that the council failed us badly not taking the situation seriously enough even though police were involved . and this same family set my son on fire six years ago , so they knew that they were very dangerous i to want to sue council as things need changed in the way the council act on these people .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment