Human Rights & Possession

A landmark decision has been reached in the case of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council v Armour [2012] EWHC 3361 (QB) on the impact of a tenant's human rights on a possession claim for a property subject to an introductory tenancy.

Under Section 125 Housing Act 1996, an introductory tenancy is one which is granted for 12 months, and if it is not terminated within this time, it is converted into a standard Local Authority tenancy on the same terms. Mr Armour was granted an introductory tenancy by Southend Borough Council in January 2011. However, within two months, three complaints had been made against him for antisocial / abusive behaviour towards a neighbour, contractors and also a member of council staff. This breach of the terms of the tenancy caused the council to initiate possession proceedings against him.

Due to various adjournments at the request of the tenant, the claim was not heard until March 2012. By this point, Mr Armour had been fully compliant with the terms of the tenancy for almost a year and there had been no further complaints made against him. Also during this intervening period, Mr Armour was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome and chronic depression.

This issue was considered by Recorder Davies who had to determine whether Mr Armour should be evicted from the property so that the council could obtain possession. However, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court had to consider the tenant's right to his private and family life. Therefore, any interference with this had to be necessary and proportionate.

In arriving at her decision, the Recorder considered evidence from Mr Armour's probation officer and his youth worker (both of whom had known him for over 15 years); medical evidence that eviction would have a detrimental effect on his health; and also the effect it would have on his teenage daughter who lived with him (although this was stated not to be an important factor).

The Recorder found that, although the council had been completely justified in seeking possession at the original time and no blame was due to them for this, an eviction would be a breach of Mr Armour's right to private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. His circumstances had significantly changed and so it...