header-logo header-logo

12 June 2014 / Robin Denford
Issue: 7611 / Categories: Opinion , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Right to reply: Mind the gap

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll