Ryan Anderson acted for the London Borough of Ealing which, in the County Court at Brentford today, has obtained immediate outright possession against a secure tenant, on the absolute ground for anti-social behaviour under s.84A of the Housing Act 1985.
The court found Grounds 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 were made out in the alternative.
The court accepted Ryan’s arguments about balancing the tenant’s Article 8 right under the Human Rights Act 1998, his rights under the Equality Act 2010 and the other residents' rights to their private life and not to fear repercussions.
Background
Previously the local authority had obtained an anti-social behaviour injunction with a power of arrest.
At a hearing in August 2025 the tenant was found to have breached the injunction twice. Then at a hearing in March 2026, he was found to have breached it a further 6 times.
Subsequently in March 2026, the local authority served the tenant with notice under s.83ZA Housing Act 1985 that it intended to start possession proceedings because of his anti-social behaviour.
The earlier order: anonymous witness evidence
In 2024, at a case management hearing in the injunction proceedings, the local authority had obtained permission to rely on the anonymised statements of 2 residents unwilling to give evidence if identified.
The tenant had opposed the application arguing it was unfair for him not to know who his accusers were.
In European Convention terms it was an Article 6 argument met by an Article 8 one.
After hearing Ryan’s arguments about r.39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Court of Appeal's summary of the principles in XXX v Camden London Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1468, the court granted the local authority permission.
The possession hearing: Article 8, disability and the Equality Act 2010
The local authority’s assessment of the tenant under the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty had concluded that the tenant might be disabled, and if so that his behaviour was probably a consequence of his disability.
Nonetheless Ryan submitted that possession was proportionate, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The material relied on was:
- 3 sets of injunction proceedings
- continual breaches
- a previous move as a fresh start, and
- referrals to mental health services which the tenant declined.
The court found it would be disproportionate not to make an order. On the discretionary grounds the judge applied s.15 Equality Act 2010 and found it reasonable to order possession.
What does this mean for social landlords?
On the absolute ground of anti-social behaviour the contempt findings do the work of the evidence: the 8 proved breaches were established at 2 earlier hearings, and neither had to be reopened.
A landlord which puts its Equality Act and proportionality case at its highest against itself removes the most obvious ground of appeal, especially where a tenant is or may be unrepresented.
And anonymity obtained at the interim stage is often what makes frightened residents willing to give evidence at all, and so what makes the later possession claim possible.