|
Will social landlords be forced to act on anti-social
behaviour?
25 September 2008
In December 2008 the House of Lords will hear
a case which could have significant implications for the ASB Policy
of social landlords. At present, a social landlord does not
owe a duty of care to protect their tenants from the actions of
others including other tenants.
However, in February 2008 the Court of Session
in Scotland made a decision that if approved by the House of Lords
could change the way social landlords deal with complaints of
anti-social behaviour.
Mr Drummond moved into a house in the Moss
Park estate of Glasgow in May 1985. In March 1986 Mr
Mitchell and his family moved into the neighbouring house.
Both properties were owned by Glasgow City Council.
Trouble began on 23 December 1994 when Mr
Drummond was playing loud music in his home. Mr Mitchell
banged on the wall to remonstrate. Mr Drummond retaliated and
came to Mr Mitchell’s front door with an iron bar. Mr
Drummond battered Mr Mitchell’s front door, leaving five
holes. During Mr Drummond’s arrest, he shouted that Mr
Mitchell was a “dead man”.
Thereafter, Mr Drummond made threats at least
once a month. The Council warned Mr Drummond that he might be
evicted if his behaviour did not improve. In January 2001 and
again in July 2001 Mr Drummond was charged with breaching the peace
following aggressive behaviour towards Mr Mitchell.
Mr Mitchell reported these incidents to the
City Council and expressed his concern at their lack of
activity. The Council invited Mr Drummond to a meeting which
took place on 31 July 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to
discuss the incident in July and the service of a Notice of Seeking
Possession. Given the continuing problems the Council advised
Mr Drummond that they were considering possession
proceedings. Mr Drummond lost his temper during the interview
and became abusive. Prior to the meeting taking place the
City Council did not warn Mr Mitchell about its occurrence or
purpose, nor did they attempt to warn Mr Mitchell or the police
about Mr Drummond’s behaviour following the meeting.
On leaving the meeting, Mr Drummond returned
to the Moss Park estate and he violently assaulted Mr
Mitchell. Subsequently on 10 August 2001 Mr
Mitchell died of his injuries.
Mr Mitchell’s wife brought an action in the
Scottish Court of Session against Glasgow City Council claiming
that they had breached their duty of care to Mr Mitchell by failing
to a) instigate eviction proceedings against Mr Drummond at an
earlier stage; and b) warn Mr Mitchell about the meeting they
arranged with Mr Drummond on 31 July 2001.
Glasgow City Council applied for the claim to
be struck out on the basis that a duty of care does not arise in
these circumstances. This application was successful.
However, on appeal the decision was
overturned. The Court ruled that the Council may owe
a duty of care to Mr Mitchell and his family and that the case
should be referred to a trial court to hear all the evidence and
decide whether a duty of care actually existed in this case.
It is this decision which is being appealed to the House of
Lords and we shall provide you with an update when the Law Lords
consider this important issue which could potentially result in
wholesale changes to the anti-social behaviour policies of social
landlords if the Court’s ruling is upheld.
For more information or advice, please contact Gary
Ekpenyoung.
The content of this bulletin is provided for
the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only
brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not
provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute
legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.