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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll