Ms M lives at her premises with her son,
daughter and 2 dogs. In the last 2 years the occupants of the flat
directly below Ms M’s have complained to the Council, alleging anti
social behaviour from Ms M and her children including arguments,
shouting, swearing and drunken behaviour, all taking place in the
early hours of the morning and continuing for long periods of time.
The said occupants also allege that Ms M and her children play with
their dogs in the early hours of the morning and that the dogs bark
throughout the night.
Following these complaints the Council issued
possession proceedings against Ms M on the grounds of anti social
behaviour and rent arrears. The Council also applied within the
possession proceedings for an Injunction under the Housing Act 1996
preventing Ms M from engaging in anti social behaviour and from
keeping animals in her home without the Council’s permission. At
the hearing of the Council’s application for an injunction, which
took place 3 days after we were instructed, the judge granted the
Council an interim injunction preventing Ms M from engaging in any
anti social behaviour. The interim injunction was to remain in
force pending the outcome of the Trial.
The Council subsequently issued an application
for Ms M to be committed to prison alleging that she had breached
the interim injunction, however at the hearing of that application
the Council agreed to an adjournment of their application until the
Trial.
At the Trial, the Judge having heard all of
the Council’s witnesses’ suggested both parties consider settling
this matter on terms. Both parties agreed that the matter be
settled on the terms of a Postponed Possession Order, which
included; the removal of only 1 of Ms M’s dogs, not to cause
nuisance or annoyance to occupants in flat below and to pay current
weekly rent plus a small amount each week towards the arrears. The
Injunction Order obtained at the initial hearing was discharged and
no order was made in respect of the Council’s committal
application. The Council did not seek an order for costs against
our client.
Ms M benefited in that she retained: possession of her home, her
secure tenancy status and 1 of her dogs. She was also no longer
subject to an Injunction which carried the threat of a fine or
prison sentence and she did not have a costs order made against
her. The judge also spared Ms M and her family the distress of
giving evidence in court. The judge also praised our Counsel for
handling this difficult case in the manner that she did.