header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 June 2014 / Robin Denford
Issue: 7611 / Categories: Opinion , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Right to reply: Mind the gap

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Robin Denford raises questions over the removal of the power to restrain a breach of tenancy injunction

I read with interest the article by Kirsty Varley in NLJ (“Mind the gap”, NLJ, 23 May 2014, p 11). 

With the greatest of respect to Ms Varley, I do not see that the removal of the power to restrain a breach of tenancy injunction is a significant loss with the re-enactment of tools and powers formerly contained within the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996). 

Council experience

Since the 1996 legislation was created, my authority has successfully sought many hundreds of anti-social behaviour injunctions under s 153 of HA 1996. In very few cases has the use of s 153D been a significant part of the relief sought. 

My council’s own tenancy conditions do make the tenant responsible for the acts of his visitors. It is however, very rarely the case that the tenant is a passive actor. Conduct which is in breach of tenancy conditions which is serious enough

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll