over the hill
On 15 July 2010, in the case of Octavia Hill Housing Trust v
Brumby, the High Court decided that a victim of anti-social
behaviour definitely might be able to successfully sue their
landlord for failing to tackle such behaviour.
The facts were that B, a tenant of the Trust, lived on the lower
ground floor of a block of flats. B commenced proceedings against
the trust on the basis that for nearly four years she had suffered
from the Trust's failure to prevent a nuisance to her by visitors
to another flat in the block. B alleged that she had made 11
complaints to the Trust, but that it had failed to take any
reasonable steps to abate the nuisance caused to her.
The Trust applied to strike the claim out for disclosing no
reasonable grounds and applied for summary judgment on the basis
that it had no real prospect of success. It submitted that for
there to be a cause of action in the instant case there had to be
more than the mere existence of anti-social behaviour on the
Trust's land and that a mere failure to abate the nuisance was not
enough.
what this means for social landlords
Courts have always been reluctant to hold landlords/landowners
responsible to the victims of anti-social behaviour, (unless such
behaviour has been encouraged by them). All previous similar claims
have failed-hence the attempt by the Trust to have this claim
struck out, as having no valid legal basis and no prospect of
success.
Of course, it may well be that when this case goes to trial, the
Trust will successfully defend the claim. However, the fact that it
has been allowed to proceed may signal a change of attitude towards
such claims, by the courts. It may be that if B can prove that she
had complained, but that nothing, (or not enough) was done, in
response, by the Trust, that a court may hold the Trust liable. If
that were to be the result, the legal, practical and financial
consequences for registered providers could be significant.
