Landmark ruling increases protection for social housing tenants
Courts must consider proportionality when hearing possession cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark ruling that will give social housing tenants greater protection.
The justices unanimously held, in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45 that, where a person’s home is at stake, that person should be able to have the proportionality as well as the reasonableness of that decided by a court, under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The tenant, Cleveland Pinnock, had his secure tenancy with Manchester City Council demoted due to the anti-social and sometimes criminal behaviour of his adult children, who would sometimes visit him. A year later, just before his tenancy was due to revert to a secure tenancy, he was served with an eviction order. He challenged the decision.
While Pinnock’s eviction notice was upheld in this case, the decision sets an important precedent for social housing law.
Andrew Lane, barrister at Hardwicke chambers, said the decision was “a major shift from previous House of Lords’ decisions and current practice”.
“Mr Pinnock appealed on the basis that he had not been allowed by domestic law to raise the issue of the proportionality of his eviction for reasons related to the behaviour of his adult sons rather than his own behaviour, even though Art 8 European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court required him to be able to raise this issue. He had been a tenant for more than 30 years, and no allegations have ever been made against him personally.
“Although reasonableness is currently able to be raised, the effect of this judgment is that judges and lawyers now need to grapple with the difference between reasonableness and proportionality. It also encourages more defences to mandatory claims for possession.”
John Wadham, group director legal at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which intervened in the case, said the judgment “does not prevent social landlords from evicting a tenant...what it does mean is that such decisions will not be taken lightly”.
