Croydon London Borough Council v Kalonga [2022] UKSC 7 (09 March 2022)
Citation:Croydon London Borough Council v Kalonga [2022] UKSC 7 (09 March 2022)
Subjects invoked: '23. Nuisance', '97. Social Security',
Rule of thumb:If a Council-lease tenant is being a nuisance & not paying rent, can they be evicted, even if they go straight back on the homeless list? Yes, although this puts them back on the homeless list so they end up in a similar flat eventually to the one they are already in, it is hoped this can incentivise them to find work & also be less of a nuisance in the new place.
Background facts:
This case was in the subject of social security law & nuisance law. It invoked the subject of evictions of tenants who rent a flat from the Council.
The facts of this case were that Kalonga had a 5 year fixed tenancy with the Council. Kalonga had got into disputes with the Council and had not paid her rent, and had also allegedly caused other nuisance problems in the flat. The Council sought to kick Kalonga out of her flat. Ie the Council argued that the forfeiture and termination clauses of the 5 year tenancy agreement applied in this matter due to Kalonga’s conduct in her flat.
Spurred by an anti-eviction social movement, Kalonga interestingly argued that the forfeiture and termination clauses were not triggered in fixed 5 year Council tenancies contracts like she had. Kalonga argued that the Council should not be allowed to evict Council tenants from their Council flat for unpaid bills, as this essentially made them homeless. Kalonga argued that the Council should pursue other avenues, such as declare the tenant bankrupt if necessary and control their finances to obtain the money/bank account, but not actually kick the tenant out and make them homeless. The Council argued that the forfeiture and termination clauses being invoked was how the system of Council tenancies worked, and this other one proposed by Kalonga was wrought with problems and completely unworkable. The Council argued that an evicted tenant could reapply for homelessness again and then get another Council flat somewhere else that may encourage them to live more sustainably. The Council argued that was the system that was implemented for flats under social security law, and it was the only system that worked (otherwise people can become completely unruly, unmotivated & it is totally unworkable in practice).
Judgment:
The Court upheld the arguments of the Council and affirmed that the Council were within their rights to evict people from their Council flat in these types of circumstances – they argued that the forfeiture and termination clauses (eviction) could be invoked under the circumstances of someone being in arrears or repeatedly causing nuisance and the Council’s legal position was indeed correct. (As it happened Kalonga had found accommodation elsewhere and was not actually kicked out her flat, but the case cemented an important and fundamental point of social security law).
Ratio-decidendi:
‘Read in the context of her judgment, the declarations were intended to mean that, because Ms Kalonga’s tenancy agreement never contained a provision for forfeiture, it could never have been terminated by Croydon prior to the expiry of the fixed term, regardless of the underlying facts. I have reached a different conclusion. The tenancy agreement did contain a provision for forfeiture, of which, on the assumed facts about her conduct, Croydon could have availed itself by seeking a termination in lieu of forfeiture. That would have required Croydon to have complied with the statutory and common law requirements for forfeiture, so as in particular to enable her to seek relief, but it decided not to do so. The tenancy agreement also contained a number of other provisions for early termination otherwise than due to the tenant’s default which, if the requisite conditions had been satisfied, might have enabled Croydon to terminate the fixed term early by seeking possession on the statutory grounds rather than termination in lieu of forfeiture’, Lord Briggs at 63
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.