The High Court has dismissed an appeal that the possession order amounted to unlawful discrimination. The court held that bringing possession proceedings against a disabled tenant was proportionate to achieving Richmond Housing Partnership's (RHP) legitimate aims.
RHP sought possession of Ms Thiam's property, which she occupied under the terms of an assured tenancy. The claim was brought under several grounds, including for non-payment of rent, anti-social behaviour and hoarding.
It was determined at the time the initial possession claim was issued that Ms Thiam did not have litigation capacity and the Official Solicitor was appointed as a litigation friend. Ms Thiam suffered with schizophrenia.
The County Court held that all of the grounds were made out and RHP was granted a possession order. It was noted that there was evidence in support of RHP's case, namely that that the property was neglected. There was evidence showing bags of rubbish in the garden and passageways, and the house was filled with hoarded items. The Judge accepted that Ms Thiam suffered with mental health issues, including hoarding. The Judge noted that as a result of Ms Thiam's condition, she was unable to understand the severity of her hoarding which had resulted in a deterioration of the property. Notwithstanding these findings, it was found that RHP's decision to apply for possession was proportionate in the context of achieving a legitimate aim. The Judge agreed that RHP had a duty to maintain housing stock to a decent standard for the sake of other tenants and public health.
Ms Thiam appealed the Court's decision on three grounds:
- RHP failed to acknowledge the connection between her mental illness and the hoarding when commencing possession proceedings;
- RHP did not make adequate efforts to obtain specialist intervention; and
- RHP failed to apply to the Court of Protection to address her mental health needs.
The Court of appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal.
The Court noted that RHP had not identified disability at the outset of the claim, however noted that proportionality is assessed at the time of the hearing. The Court also considered how RHP had made several referrals to adult and children's social services. It was noted that RHP could have made referrals to hoarding specialists, however these omissions did not render the decision to issue a possession claim disproportionate.
The Court held that RHP is not a statutory authority which has an obligation to deliver care interventions, rather it is responsible to manage its housing stock in a reasonable manner, which it had successfully done by making referrals to mental health services.
Ms Thiam's appeal was dismissed. RHP had acted lawfully and was justified in commencing possession proceedings.
