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

judges spontaneously mentioned that they would consider granting possession on low
amounts of arrears, if these were attributable to a small proportion of the rent not covered by
housing benefit, and were therefore the tenant’s responsibility. This might persuade them to
grant possession because, as DJ U argued, if a low level of arrears:
“In fact represents non-payment of the shortfall between housing benefit and rent for
a considerable number of weeks, then it may nevertheless be reasonable to make
the suspended possession order.”
Many district judges seemed to feel strongly about tenants’ failure to pay a small
contribution; for example DJ J said:
“I think in many ways that’s more reprehensible than not having paid two hundred
and fifty pounds over five weeks.”
Responses of district judges to housing benefit scenario 3
Scenario 3
A local authority is seeking possession against a tenant, who was granted a tenancy four
months ago. The rent is £55 per week. No rent has been paid since the tenant moved in
and arrears are £935. The tenant, a single woman attends and tells you that she is
unemployed and has submitted a housing benefit claim. She has tried to contact housing
benefit, but has not been able to find out what has happened. The housing officer tells you
that she (the housing officer) has contacted housing benefit that morning. The housing
benefit office state categorically that they have written to the tenant asking for further
information, and until that information is received the claim cannot be processed.
As already noted, the district judges interviewed had definite views about the problems
posed by housing benefit. Many of them volunteered examples of these, and made clear
their attitudes towards the tenants, landlords and the housing benefit administration with
which they had to deal on a regular basis. The scenario which was then put to them
provided a good opportunity of testing out these views against a typical case.
The district judges had to adjudicate between the evidence of the unemployed single female
tenant that her housing benefit claim had disappeared into the system, and the information
from housing benefits relayed to the court by the housing officer, that the tenant had failed to
respond to their request for further information without which the claim could not be
processed.
Only one of the district judges interviewed (DJ G) considered a possession order:
“DJ: Four months ago, right, no rent paid. Mmm-hmm. (pause) And this is an
outright order that’s being sought, is it?
Interviewer: Yes.
83