Landlords should not panic after Metropolitan was taken to court over harassment claims

The case involved Mr Worthington and Ms Parkin, who were, separately, Metropolitan tenants in the same street. They both complained about ASB.

Mr Worthington published photos on a website of what he said was residents engaged in ASB. Ms Parkin was given permission by Metropolitan to put up CCTV.

Metropolitan then received a petition from residents about Mr Worthington and Ms Parkin filming and taking photos, with specific concerns about images being taken of local children.

“Metropolitan did what most landlords would do, they investigated the complaint.”

Metropolitan did what most landlords would do, they investigated the complaint. They met with Mr Worthington and Ms Parkin. They saw her CCTV and did not raise concerns (neither did the judge, who found the CCTV was used appropriately).

Following the meeting, Metropolitan sent a letter. A while later, they sent another letter demanding Ms Parkin change the position of her camera.

Ms Parkin moved house on the same estate and installed cameras at her new property.

A new housing officer emailed Mr Worthington. Metropolitan’s solicitors wrote again to both residents. The solicitors demanded Mr Worthington remove CCTV cameras he did not have.

Internally concerns were raised about how the case was being handled, but nothing happened as a result.

Another letter from Metropolitan’s solicitors threatened a Notice of Seeking Possession would be served. In fact, that was not done and seven months later Mr Worthington and Ms Parkin were told that no action would be taken against them.

The tenants issued proceedings for damages under the Protection from Harassment Act.

“The judge found there had been a ‘lack of supervision and care’ by the housing officer’s managers.”

The judge found there had been a “lack of supervision and care” by the housing officer’s managers and as a result of the officer’s “carelessness or incompetence” the solicitors’ threatening letters were sent.

The judge said the officer had “got the wrong end of the stick completely” and he had not properly considered his responses.

The judge found there was no evidence capable of supporting the officer’s behaviour and his actions went “beyond being merely unreasonable or disproportionate”.

The appeal was brought on three points:

• That there had not been a course of conduct. The appeal judge was satisfied there was
• The behaviour was not of sufficient gravity and was merely unattractive or unreasonable. The appeal judge was satisfied it was
• The conduct would not be regarded as harassment. The appeal judge disagreed. The judge had considered that point carefully and found the officer’s approach flawed and hopelessly careless

Landlords should not panic, but should take note of this case to ensure that some of the basic principles of managing an ASB case are upheld.

“Landlords should not panic, but should take note of this case to ensure that some of the basic principles of managing an ASB case are upheld.”

You can, and should, form a view as to the merits of a case based on a robustly objective assessment of your evidence.

Investigations should be objective, all sides must be listened to. Avoid labels such as “victim” and “perpetrator” which suggest your mind is already made-up.

Avoid standard letters – while this can provide a consistent approach, they generally do not have an impact and can sometimes lead to complacency.

Officers must be properly supported and supervised, and have their concerns taken seriously through regular ASB case reviews.

A Notice of Seeking Possession can be served and proceedings issued, where allegations are contested or counter allegations are made. They should contain precise wording of what it is said was done. Avoid phrases such as “it was reported to us” or “it is alleged that”.

A covering letter should explain the entitlement to contest the allegations. You may even provide an opportunity for an internal review. The Introductory Tenants (Review) Regulations 1997 provides a useful template.

Daniel Skinner, partner, Capsticks