|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Root  EWCA Civ 43 (12 January 2005)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 43
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM SOUTHEND COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE YELTON)
B e f o r e :
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division)
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
|LONDON & QUADRANT HOUSING TRUST||Claimant/Respondent|
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR R LATHAM (instructed by Shelter Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MISS E HAGGERTY (instructed by Prince Evans) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"It is still being alleged that he is continually repairing cars on the estate and is persistently abusive to residents in Totland Drive.
I will advise you again that if your partner is running a business from the Trust's property you are breaching the terms and conditions of your tenancy. If it is proven that he is verbally abusing residents and/or threatening them, this is a very serious matter. This behaviour will not be tolerated by the Trust, and whilst I appreciate it is not you causing this nuisance and annoyance to the neighbours, Mr Barnes is a member of your household, so ultimately his behaviour will affect your tenancy.
I visited the estate last week, and your partner very obviously came out of the property thumping a hammer into the palm of his hand. I feel sure that this was for my benefit, and was intended by him to intimidate me. The Trust cannot allow this intimidation to continue towards the staff or towards the residents.
If you wish to discuss the contents of this letter please contact me as a matter of urgency [and she gave her telephone number]".
"I have had 3 anonymous calls today from the residents of Totlands Drive all advising of the same. They advised that Mr Barnes was fucking and blinding in the street today because someone had grassed him up to the housing. He was shouting that if he found out who it was they would die.
The residents sounded really worried and the second caller was a man who said he really feared for his family's safety.
Mr Barnes was smacking his fists into his cars because he was in such a temper. He said 'when I find out who has done this they need to be looking over their shoulders'. The lady caller said they should not have to live in fear all the time.
I tried desperately hard to get these people on board to keep diaries. No-one would do this because they are so scared. The man caller said even if they were to keep diaries they would have to attend court, and in his words he said 'we wouldn't still be here for the hearing, Mr Barnes would see to that'."
"... the condition of the front and rear garden of the premises is appalling. As regards the front garden, the majority of the cause of its appalling state is directly attributable to the car repair/renovation/car stripping business that Jay Barnes is operating from the front garden. The remaining part being the huge amount of junk and toys. The premises sticks out like a sore thumb from all the other properties in Totlands Drive as all the other residents abide by the conditions of their tenancy agreements and keep their front gardens cultivated and tidy. To say that the front garden of the premises is an eyesore is to say the least. The condition of the back garden is clearly demonstrated in the photographs..."
It is clear from the transcript that the judge attached considerable importance to the photographs, not only photographs taken at the outset in January 2004 but also photographs which were taken later, first in June 2004 and then in August 2004. Miss Root accepted at the hearing that these photographs provided an accurate representation of what was there at the time.
"The court must consider, in particular -
(a) the effect that the nuisance or annoyance has had on persons other than the person against whom the order is sought;
(b) any continuing effect the nuisance or annoyance is likely to have on such persons;
(c) the effect that the nuisance or annoyance would be likely to have on such persons if the conduct is repeated."
That is a positive requirement on the part of Parliament that the effect of any nuisance or annoyance on third persons must be taken into account by judges when they decide whether a possession order should or should not be made. Judge Yelton at Southend County Court in this case was well aware of this section. He did take it into account in paragraph 14 of his judgment and decided that a possession order was necessary and that it should not be suspended. My Lord has set out the evidence which justified that order, and I agree that it would not be right for us to interfere.
Order: Appeal dismissed with costs on standard terms against a legally aided party. Legal aid assessment of the appellant's costs. Stay lifted.