The exercise of judicial discretion in rent arrears cases - Sheffield ...

The nature of the landlord became an important factor to balance against the occupiers’
rights:
“Local authorities and a lot of the housing associations really can’t fulfil their
obligations as they would like to, because they simply haven’t got the means to do it
[…]. If they didn’t have various people owing them quite a lot of money, there would
be more to do the repairs.” (DJ O)
Second, our interviewees expressed concern about the rights of the occupier who had not
been paying their rent against the needs of others on the waiting list. For DJ W, this was a
“subsidiary consideration” and “it’s just my slight concern that perhaps I should be more
bullish…particularly with the more persistent defaulters”. On the other hand, DJ U would ask
of some occupiers:
“‘Look, if you’ve chosen not to pay it then why do you expect the court to help you
now?’ If there’s a lot of people screaming out for accommodation, willing to pay for it,
why should I give priority to people who are not prepared to do so. Not are unable to
do so, but not prepared to."
Again, this factor could be deployed at different parts of the process. For example, one
interviewee used this in discussion of scenario 7 as a scare tactic:
“‘Look, £4.50 a week, it’s not a king’s ransom, and you’re working. You’ve got to pay
it otherwise you’ve got to go.’ And then, if the landlord’s there I invariably ask, ‘How
many people on the housing list?’ A scare tactic to, not to frighten her, but to make
her realise that if she wants to stay she’s being housed for £4.50, you know, 60p a
day is not a lot to ask.” (DJ P)
This factor could, however, be used to swing the other way, in favour of the tenant. At least,
the social obligation implied in the role of ‘social landlord’ would not outweigh the duties to
the occupier. Thus, for example, it was said that if you evict a mother and her children, you
are creating more problems in society at large:
“than you are trying to deal with the particular problem of them not paying the rent,
and other people who would be good tenants being in the waiting list” (DJ I)
Finally, it was said that, where tenants of social landlords were evicted, the problem was that
the social landlord – or, rather, the local authority – would be required to re-house the tenant
at some considerable cost. Although some interviewees recognised the likelihood of a
finding of intentional homelessness, others raised concerns over the costs of rehousing,
using this as a technique to deny possession to a social landlord:
“But the local authority is really the end of the line in terms of housing. And they’re
going to be the ones that pick up the pieces when somebody presents with a priority
need. So I think that’s why, I suppose, I take a slightly different [approach], I say,
‘Look, hang on, you know, where’s this family going to go? You’re going to have to
pick up the pieces anyway’.” (DJ H)
53