Part of the tenant`s defence was that he had carried out these acts, in violation of the lease, under the misunderstanding that he had the right to do so. With respect to the offences, it was concluded that the judge had found certain offences, but that he should also have recorded the findings of the above offences. The Court then turned to the issue of adequacy. The court found that the judge took into account the impact on other residents and accepted that the discretion granted to the judge was broad. It was determined, however, that the judge had not taken into account the adequacy of all the offences demonstrated on the evidence, but had taken into account only a small number of offences. In my judgment, the Court stated that “in cases where the judge erred in not finding any other breach of the lease, it is difficult to give weight to his conclusion that it would not be appropriate or proportionate to issue an order of possession. Because it is obvious that the judge did not have the opportunity to consider other breaches relevant to the tenancy agreement and their impact on other tenants, because he had not found these violations. Repayments Refunds will only be made in case of overpayment. Please contact us on 01626 322722 or by email: customerhub@teignhousing.co.uk for more information. In violation of the rental conditions, the tenant carried out extensive work on the kitchen, made modifications to the gas smoke and installed a CCTV camera. S9 (2) of the same law provides that “by order of ownership of a rented building on a guaranteed rent … the court … (a) … Suspend the execution of the Order…
(3) … to such a stay the court, unless it considers that it would cause exceptional hardship to the tenant or else it could be unreasonable such other conditions, as it deems appropriate.” During the appeal process, the High Court found that the judge had not taken into account all the offences committed by the tenant in deciding the suitability. The landlord was also accused of failing to set out in his briefs the specific provisions for rent protection that were violated. S7 (1) of the Housing Act 1988 provides that “the court does not issue an order on the possession of a leased building on a secure tenancy agreement, except on one or more of the reasons set out in Schedule 2 of this Act…. 4. If the court is satisfied that one of the reasons for Part II of Schedule 2 of this Act is established, … the court may make a decision of possession, if it deems it appropriate. The facts were, in short, Mr. Lane had been a tenant of Teign Housing for some time and a move to the property was agreed in August 2016 after he had been subjected to anti-social behaviour on his former property. The parties had agreed to close an area of the community garden for the tenant`s dogs, but other residents were not satisfied with this decision. After the move, Mr. Lane put the gas smoke and taps in the kitchen, in violation of his lease.
His position was that he had permission to do so or that he had an honest faith (because of his mental disorder) that he had such permission. Neighbours then complained that Mr. Lane was playing loud music.