Legal Tool

The fire is anti-social behaviour grounds for evictions. All tenancy agreements are to include a rule against anti-social behaviour. That makes it easier for landlords to evict alleged anti-social tenants for breaching their contract.

The notice period for evicting tenants who breach their tenancy agreement due to anti-social behaviour is going to be two weeks.

The Renters Bill will give private landlords powers social housing providers had and have under the Housing Act 1996, replaced by Anti-social, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“2014 Act”).

In 2014 under section 153A of the Housing Act 1996, Midland Heart applied for and obtain an Anti-social Behaviour Injunction (“ASBI”) banning a tenant expressing his “opinion and belief”. In two emails to its operation manager, the tenant described him as “racist” and “white supremacist”.

Section 2 (“s2”) of the 2014 Act allows Midland Heart to treat tenants’ complaint of racial discrimination by its staff as anti-social behaviour. s5 empowers Midland Heart to apply to a court for an injunction to ban tenants repeating the complaint. If a tenant defies the injunction, under s10 Midland Heart can apply to the court for an arrest warrant.

s2 says “anti-social behaviour” means: a) “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or c) conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”

s2 does not say what type of “conduct” causes “housing-related nuisance or annoyance”. In effect, landlords are free to pick and choose what is that “conduct”. In other words, tenants do not know for certain what type of “conduct” to avoid in order to escape causing “nuisance or annoyance.” Such arbitrary definition does not provide “legal certainty”.

The European Court of Human Rights has highlighted the importance of public knowledge and understanding of existing laws. “The law must thus be adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual – if need be with appropriate advice – to regulate his conduct.” (ECHR 2008).

A 30 mile per hour speed limit, for example, is a law “formulated with sufficient precision to enable” a driver to “regulate” his “conduct”.

The Metropolitan Police website answers the question “What is antisocial behaviour? It lists 13 types of “conducts” capable of causing nuisance and annoyance. Armed with such information, a Londoner knows how best to avoid dealing with the cops.

Landlords’ freedom to pick and choose what type of “conduct” constitutes anti-social behaviour has impacted a Black tenant’s freedom of expression. By letter to Midland Heart in-house solicitor Hannah Boyd, the tenant wrote:

Midland Heart alleged the tenant feeling offended by its reference to using “legal tool” to control his behaviour was “conduct” causing “much nuisance and annoyance”. Therefore his “conduct” was anti-social behaviour. It breached the tenancy agreement.

In her witness statement in support of Midland Heart’s application for the ASBI, Boyd said:

“I find it totally unacceptable that the Defendant thinks it appropriate and acceptable for him to use such offensive language towards me and other members of the Claimant’s staff when we are merely going about our daily jobs to the best of our abilities.”

Just to be clear, Midland Heart was saying a Jamaican slave descendant feeling offended by its reference to using “legal tool” to control his behaviour is “conduct” putting him at risk of eviction and prison.

The tenant was “merely” stating historical facts regarding legal tools “white enslavers” use to control Black people’s “conduct”. “Over 18 months in the slave society of Barbados, [Benjamin Lay] and his wife, Sarah, witnessed how Africans were whipped, starved and burned by their wealthy white enslavers.”(The Guardian, 2023)

Incidentally in 2014, Boyd had falsely informed the tenant’s insurers he was involved in a fraudulent activity: "I think there might be some fraudulent activity". He was the subject of "a fraud case", Boyd said.

Does Midland Heart endorse Boyd’s type of “conduct”. Was her false allegation conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance. In other words, was Boyd conduct anti-social behaviour?

Midland Heart’s interpretation of anti-social behaviour reinforces how a landlord defines “conduct” is arbitrary. Lord Neuberger has said “It would, of course, be wrong” to interpret legislation “in an artificially wide or impractical way or so as to be oppressive to those who are alleged to be behaving offensively: even if they are behaving offensively, such persons have rights as well”.

Midland Heart willingness to enforce what it “artificially” says is anti-social conduct is “oppressive”.

This website will campaign for clear and precise meaning of what type of “conduct” is capable of causing nuisance and annoyance.

Without a precise statutory definition of what type of “conduct” constitutes anti-social behaviour, The Renters Reform Bill will leave Black tenants more, not less, vulnerable.

“The public must not be vulnerable to interference by public officials acting on any personal whim, caprice, malice, predilection or purpose other than that for which the power was conferred. This is what, in this context, is meant by arbitrariness, which is the antithesis of legality”. (Bingham, 2009)

Amen.