press release
Law Lords ‘neighbours from hell’ decision major relief for social landlords
20 February 2009
Local authorities and housing associations
breathed a huge sigh of relief after the House of Lords agreed that
they cannot be held responsible for the violent or unruly behaviour
inflicted on their tenants by others, including other tenants.
It follows the case of Anne Mitchell, the
widow of James Mitchell, who was killed by a violent neighbour. Ms
Mitchell sued Glasgow City Council for failing in its duty of care
towards Mr Mitchell even though social landlords do not owe a duty
of care to protect their tenants.
Gary Ekpenyoung, an expert in social housing
at law firm Browne Jacobson, said:
“This decision will be a huge sigh of relief
for social landlords up and down the county. Had the decision gone
the other way it would have had far reaching consequences and would
have opened up the floodgates for multiple claims.”
The decision centered on the case of Mr
Mitchell who moved into a property on the Moss Park estate of
Glasgow in March 1986. His neighbour was Mr Drummond. Both
properties were owned by Glasgow City Council.
Trouble began in December 1994 when Mr
Mitchell complained to Mr Drummond for playing loud music in his
home. Between 1994 until 2001 there were countless incidences
of verbal and physical abuse directed at Mr Mitchell and his family
by Mr Drummond.
Subsequently Mr Drummond was warned by Glasgow
City Council that they were considering possession proceedings. In
January 2001 the Council served on Mr Drummond a Notice of
Proceedings for Recovery of Possession of the property. On 31
July 2001 the Council arranged a meeting with Mr Drummond to
discuss his behaviour and the Notice of Proceedings. At the
meeting the Council explained that they would be issuing a fresh
Notice of Proceedings and that they would continue to monitor his
anti-social behaviour which could result in his eviction. Mr
Drummond lost his temper and became abusive at the meeting, however
he then appeared to calm down and apologised to the Council’s
staff. He then left the meeting and violently assaulted Mr
Mitchell, leaving him with injuries from which he subsequently
died.
Mrs Mitchell sought to claim damages from the
Council on the basis that they should have kept Mr Mitchell and the
police informed of the steps they were taking against Mr Drummond
and in particular should have notified them of the meeting on 31
July 2001.
Judgment was handed down on 18 February
2009. Lord Hope noted that if such a duty to warn was
imposed, the Council would have had to determine, step by step at
each stage, whether or not the actions that they proposed to take
in fulfillment of their responsibilities as landlords required a
warning to be given, and to whom. They would have had to
defer taking that step until the warning had been received by
everyone and an opportunity given for it to be acted on. The
more attentive the Council was to their ordinary duties as
landlords, the more onerous the duty to warn would
become.
Lord Hope went on to state that these problems
suggest that to impose a duty to warn, together with the risk that
action could be taken against them by anybody who suffered loss,
injury or damage if they had received no warning, would deter
social landlords from intervening to reduce the incidence or
antisocial behaviour.
In giving his judgment, Lord Hope stated that,
as a general rule:
“a duty to warn another person that he is
at risk of loss, injury or damage as a result of the criminal act
of a third party will arise only where the person who is said to be
under that duty has by his words or conduct assumed responsibility
for the safety of the person who is at risk”.
The Council had not assumed responsibility to
advise Mr Mitchell of the steps they were taking or induced him to
rely on them to do so. Accordingly it was held that it would
not be fair, just or reasonable to hold that the Council were under
a duty to warn Mr Mitchell of the steps they were taking.
save to PDF