header-logo header-logo

24 June 2014 / Kirsty Varley
Categories: Opinion , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Right to reply: Mind the gap (2)

Kirsty Varley reponds to questions about the implications of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014

I was heartened to read the considered and detailed comment by Robin Denford (“Right to reply: Mind the gap”, NLJ, 12 June 2014). My recent pieces on this subject have certainly encouraged debate amongst the profession where it was seemingly absent before-hand (see “Mind the gap”, NLJ, 23 May 2014, p 11). This is always welcome and can only serve to improve the service offered to our clients.

I note that Mr Denford does not use s 153D of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996) in Bristol to any great extent. My experience and the anecdotal evidence from client officers nationwide, is that this is a well-used and greatly appreciated tool. There will clearly be local variations with any remedy, and this can be seen from the viewpoint offered by Mr Denford at Bristol Council.

I question the assessment of the current s 153D injunction offered by Mr Denford.

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll