Agenda item

To consider a request by a tenant for a review of the decision to issue a Notice of Proceedings for Possession under the provisions of the Housing Act 1996 (Part V).

(This item contains personal information regarding the appellant which is exempt from publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

The Committee considered a request for an Introductory Tenancy Review from a tenant dissatisfied with a decision taken by the Council to issue a Notice of Proceedings for Possession.

Mrs S Tomlinson, Anti Social Behaviour Officer, Blackpool Coastal Housing and Ms S Hunter, Senior Legal Officer, Blackpool Council presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

Also in attendance at the meeting were Mrs Goodall, Head of Legal Services to advise the Committee on policy and procedure only and had taken no part in the original decision and Miss Burnett, Clerk to the Committee.

The appellant was in attendance, supported by a friend.

The Committee was advised that on 20 January, the appellant had sought an adjournment of the review, but due to statutory time constraints, the request could not be accommodated.

The Committee carefully considered the written representation provided by both parties, namely the Review report and the Report of PCSO Joanna Crichton.  It was considered that the Notice to Terminate had been correctly served and that, on balance, the reports of anti-social behaviour contained in the chronology had occurred.  The Committee noted that in the appellant’s request for a review, he had disputed the allegations and claimed he was being discriminated against.

The Committee noted that Blackpool Coastal Housing had attempted to engage with the appellant to ensure that he complied with the terms of the tenancy, sending three warning letters between April 2016 and December 2016 and extending the Introductory Tenancy to provide further opportunity for the appellant to improve his conduct.  The Committee was satisfied that notwithstanding those efforts the anti-social behaviour continued despite promises to change and the appellant had not engaged with support services.  In addition, the Committee was advised that a signed witness statement from an employee of Electricity North West, confirmed that a piece of wire had been connected between the live terminals of the meter for purpose of obtaining electricity without payment.  This action supplemented the decision to serve the Notice of Proceedings for Possession, as the appellant was the sole beneficiary and posed a serious risk to both life and property.

The Committee found that the appellant’s conduct and that of his visitors had, on every alleged occasion, been anti-social and unacceptable and caused nuisance, annoyance, disturbance, alarm or distress to residents and to others near the property.  The appellant acknowledged that his behaviour was due to his alcohol consumption, but he had stopping drinking, was receiving mental health and substance misuse support and was proud of what he had achieved.

In reaching its decision, the Committee noted the varied sources and the extent of complaints concerning the appellants’ behaviour and that of his visitors, for which he was responsible.  They noted also and accepted the confirmatory evidence from the police that the appellant was a high intensity user of their communication network and the impact of the appellant’s behaviour on neighbours, who due to age and mental health problems were vulnerable.

The Committee found on a fact, on the balance of probabilities, that both the allegations of breaches of Clauses Six (Using the Property) and Eight (Anti Social Behaviour) of the appellants tenancy agreement were made out.   In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the correct procedures had been followed and that the decision of the Council was justified and proportionate and upheld the decision.

Resolved:

That, having considered all the information, the Officers’ original decision to issue a Notice of Proceedings for Possession be upheld on the grounds that the terms of the Introductory Tenancy Agreement had been significantly breached and the decision of the Committee was to uphold the decision of the Council.

Background papers:  Exempt