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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
NLJ this week: Civil practice with claws & caution
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
NLJ this week: Stealing virtual gold?
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
NLJ this week: Don’t let your LPA gather dust
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll