We took on this case to defend an application for an Anti-Social Behaviour Injunction brought against our client by the local authority.  The local authority was making a series of allegations about our client’s behaviour, which he strongly denied, and he claimed that the local authority had failed to investigate and address his own allegations of ASB against the same neighbours.

We filed medical evidence about our client’s lack of injunction capacity, ADHD, and suspected autism, and the case was listed for a 3 day hearing in the County Court at Central London.  After settlement negotiations stalled, we suggested mediation would resolve things and avoid the need for trial.  We were concerned that our client’s vulnerability would mean he found the experience of giving evidence extremely stressful, and this could undermine his case.  The local authority agreed, and one day mediation took place over Zoom, where the solicitor and barrister went to the client’s flat.  The mediator brought the parties to a settlement in principle, which we finalised over the following weeks.  We were able to suggest creative ways to resolve sticking points, which would not have been available in a formal court setting. The local authority agreed to put in place a method for de-escalation of future conflict between our client and his neighbours, and to the appointment of a tenancy support officer for our client.

The case was discontinued and we got costs from the point at which we filed the medical report, from which time we said the local authority should not have continued its case. This included the costs of the mediation, given our client had been largely successful in defending the case.

s.21 defeat means vulnerable tenant can stay safe

We represented the tenant in this s.21 case against a private landlord.  The tenant was extremely vulnerable and had severe agoraphobia, meaning she could not leave the flat, and the threat of being forced out of her home made her mental health much worse.  We filed a defence relying on incorrect service of the s.21 notice, and failing to serve the correct version of “How to Rent”.  We also relied on the landlord holding a deposit totalling more than 5 weeks rent, in breach of the prohibition on banned payments.  This was complicated by the need to apply the transitional provisions of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to our client’s tenancy, given the date the tenancy commenced.  The case concluded successfully for our clients after the landlord withdrew, and we are now seeking our costs against the landlord.