Eviction for antisocial/criminal behaviour

[CandlelightGlow]

Hiya, hoping someone can help but I need to try and make this not too outing. We live in a housing association property; it is a maisonette with a 1 bedroom flat beneath it. Both properties are owned by said HA.

We have lived here since 2016. 3 years ago a new neighbour moved in and I will spare you the details, but the subsequent antisocial and drug related criminal behaviour eventually resulted in a partial closure order being placed on the house. Things quietened down for a few months but have picked up over the last 6 - 7 months and once again some pretty serious stuff has happened resulting in forced entry and arrests.

The police have informed me that they are seeking a full closure order on the property. However, I have also been in touch with the HA contacts for our area, and they are seeking to move me into a different property if possible. I am reluctant to move as it is a specialist HA with limited tenancies in our competitive (property wise) SE city.

I did ask the question that surely, 3 forced entries including 2 full on armed police raids plus all the other ASB behaviour would be enough to grant an eviction at this stage, and also asked if in particular a full closure order would be justification. The HA contact was a bit funny about this though, telling me that even in the most black and white cases, judges don't often grant evictions and Shelter does inform me that (as it should be) HA tenants do have strong tenancy rights.

However, (and this is where legal matters finally comes in!) I have read that a eviction on grounds 7A could be granted if "a closure order [has been made] on the tenant's property and access to the property under the order (and/or a closure notice) has been prohibited for more than 48 hours.

Also, the same Shelter page mentions that a 7A eviction can also be granted if an "Injunction to prevent nuisance or annoyance" has been breached.

I basically have 3 questions:

Is my HA contact correct that even with a granted partial closure order and potentially a granted full closure order, eviction would not be a given?

Could the fact that behaviour has continued after the partial closure order (no idea if it has expired) be considered a breach of IPNA or is that a completely separate thing?

Does it sound possible that these circumstances could qualify for a discretionary ground 14 eviction?

Or any general advice is greatly appreciated!

Sorry, I should have also mentioned (but my OP is already an essay) that I just find the timing a bit funny. When things initially got really bad in basically every way you can imagine before the partial order was made by the police, I was absolutely begging my HA to move me. I was on at the council, wrote to my MP, got statements from police, all of that, and I wasn't moved.

Now it seems to be that while awful, the situation has come to a head and I don't see how eviction cannot be granted, suddenly they are willing to move me. Why not just evict the tenant and let us live our life in peace again?

I don't know if I am being extremely cynical, but while all of this was going on the first time round, the HA eventually said, I think to console me a bit, that they would look to split the property's large garden in 2 so that we could have a garden, which is something I have remained hopeful for. They back tracked and said they wouldn't be able to do this legally while a tenant was occupying the downstairs flat, but could do it if it became vacant. Now there is a genuine prospect of the property becoming vacant and suddenly they are able to move me to a mid level flat in a block...

I just don't know, perhaps the whole process over the last few years has worn me down, but I feel very upset at the way this whole situation has been handled. The police have been much more helpful but the HA seem totally unwilling to get involved.

I have no advice but plenty of sympathy. They want you to move so that they don’t have to deal with the hassle of eviction. You also have no way of knowing if they’d move you to somewhere with its own problems, such as damp or high crime rates.

@Bubbahub thanks for your kind words, and yes exactly that's what I'm feeling. I don't mean this in a snobby way at all and purely in terms of safety/peace, but my flat and the flat below are the only flat in the whole area; every other house is a detached house and most are owned by retirees or older people. It's a quiet road, there are great facilities for the kids right behind us, lots of nature and a fantastic primary school.

This other place is in a very urban area in the centre of town, with people above and below us and no balcony or outdoor area at all. Also as we are on a very lucky and secure tenancy, the fact it is even becoming available is kind of a red flag to me if that makes sense?

Sounds like they plan to sell it to developers.

@AxolotlOnions ah really, that's interesting. I did idly wonder about that, but they are a very specific type of HA and in my LA, HA's can only operate under direct supervision from the LA. I don't think they would be able to just sell off the property in our area.

I am worried that they will not duly see this through in the courts and will not pursue eviction though I can't imagine at this stage why they would not do that. I keep getting told the tenant is "vulnerable" and many variations of "a judge would be unlikely to grant an eviction". But I don't see how it is not demonstrable that the HA has exhausted all other possibilities and really has waited to use eviction until a last resort.

Frustratingly I guess I will just have to wait until the outcome of the closure order on the property and then hound them further.

In my experience it depends on the tenants. In a couple of decades working with offenders/drug users, I've known a few tenants lose their tenancy due to drug dealing but they were single men with ni disability needs.

I've known numerous drug dealers where the tenancy was a woman with kids so they weren't evicted or single men with additional needs.

It basically often comes down to the LA obligation to provide housing or not and whether they can discharge their statutory duty to offer housing or not, post eviction.

They can put single non-disabled men on the streets/access to night hostels but they can't do that to women with children for example.

Shit for you, but sometimes it's a case of having obligation to house so eviction would just be causing another problem for the HA who would have to house them elsewhere.

@SpringerIrca Thank you that is really insightful.

I have heard that the neighbour may be considered as having additional needs so I might be screwed. However I do note the closure order doesn't seem to differentiate between the tenant themselves and a visitor.

The HA are considering managed moves for me, is it at all possible they could consider a managed moved for the other tenant instead? Or does this need to be approved/driven by the tenant?

I have no idea how it pertains to you lovey, sorry.

I think it's more likely they would consider a move for you as they have indicated. Which in all circumstances seems unfair and I 100% agree with that.

But housing associations are usually getting some kind of funding from the LA and even if they're considered as private companies, they are usually involved in discussions around the fact that very few people are considered not to be the responsibility of the LA and can therefore be made street homeless.

So, if there's an individual that is considered a responsibility for the LA as a mother with children, a single woman with or without additional needs (women are always prioritised for housing due to the risks of street homelessness) or a single man with additional needs, then the LA will have to house them somewhere eventually and if they're currently housed in a property meeting their needs but they're causing problems, they would likely do the same wherever they moved to so...they have to housed somewhere.

It sucks for you and is unfair but if they're already talking about moving you; they're stuck in where they can house the problematic person. Moving them is just moving the problem and they're hoping moving you will solve the problem and the new people they move in will not be so bothered by their activities.

@SpringerIrca

Thank you I really appreciate the effort and time you've taken to answer me

It's not what I would have hoped for but I do understand their position and despite everything we've been through I'm not without empathy. Hopefully we have a few months of respite ahead of us if the closure order goes ahead, at least we have a bit of breathing room and I can gather my energy and make sure I've done anything I can from my position.