Client 1
L&Q served a Notice Seeking Possession in reliance on grounds of Anti-Social Behaviour in relation to allegations of our client’s partner smoking cannabis, and noise nuisance, which was a result of our client’s son’s ASD meltdowns. We made representations to the landlord that our client’s partner’s cannabis was not illegal as it was for medicinal purposes, to treat his mental and physical health conditions; his cannabis use was verified by his GP and the Cancard Scheme. In addition, the noise nuisance was a result of our client’s son’s disability and therefore to pursue a claim for possession on these grounds would amount to indirect disability discrimination.
We also made representations that the landlord had failed to make reasonable adjustments in light of our client’s household disabilities and therefore they were in breach of their Public Sector Equality Duty. We considered that if the landlord did pursue possession proceedings, our client would be afforded a Defence under the Equality Act 2010. In response to our representations, the landlord confirmed that they would not be pursuing a claim for possession, and our client retained her home.
Client 2
Our client applied to Peterborough City Council as homeless and they found him intentionally homeless from his previous property due to him serving a prison sentence. We requested a review of the decision and made representations that he was not intentionally homeless as it was not reasonable for him to continue to occupy his previous property. We applied the definition under the Homeless Code of Guidance and concluded that the property was not reasonable for our client to occupy, at the time at which he became homeless, because he was prevented from entering the area due to an Exclusion Zone in his license conditions. We argued that this was not foreseeable and therefore did not stem from a deliberate act made in good faith. We also made arguments that the property had not been affordable to the household, as during our client’s prison sentence, his wife had taken loans to meet the costs of daily living. Peterborough City Council considered our representations and overturned their original decision, and subsequently awarded our client the full housing duty.
Client 3
L&Q made an application for Injunction under Part 1 ASBCP Act 2014, in reliance on allegations of cannabis use and noise nuisance at the property. They served the papers with extremely short notice and as our client was self-isolating, he could not attend the hearing and an Injunction Order and Power of Arrest were made in his absence. Our client later received a copy of the Injunction Order and Power of Arrest, giving him permission to make an application to set aside. Due to the delay in receiving the Order, we acted speedily to prepare an application to set aside and accompanying Witness Statement. We made arguments that the cannabis use was not illegal as it was used medicinally to treat our client’s health conditions; this use was verified by our client’s GP and the Cancard scheme.
In addition, we denied that the cannabis use was at the property and exhibited correspondence from Social Services confirming this. We also argued that the noise complaints arose as a result of our client’s son’s disabilities and therefore to seek an Injunction Order on these grounds was disability discrimination. Furthermore, we considered that as there was no evidence of risk or threats of violence that a Power of Arrest was not proportionate. Finally, further to receiving our representations in another matter, the landlord had already agreed not to pursue possession in reliance on these allegations. The landlord failed to disclose the evidence contained within our representations, to the court. Given that the application for Injunction was served with such short notice, the landlord had a duty of full and frank disclosure, which they had consequently failed to comply with. The matter concluded at hearing with the Injunction Order and Power of Arrest being discharged and our client giving an undertaking on terms he was agreeable to.
All three clients were successfully represented by solicitor Joy Gribbin
