INJUNCTION CASE STUDY
A is a tenant of a registered Provider (RP). Landlord is aware that there have been previous issues with A who has had her children removed from her care and is living alone in one of their properties.
The Landlord is receiving reports of noise nuisance, loud parties, fighting, drug taking and damage to property from A’s flat and local residents also advise that A has moved her boyfriend (B) into the property.
Despite, calling cards and letters to A, she ignored all attempts to engage with her. The Landlord continues to liaise with complainants and progress ASB case.
A chance meeting with police on the estate raised concerns about a male at the address who was a known offender with extensive police markers for violence and other serious offences. Police advise that landlord’s staff should visit in pairs or with police. Landlord informs police of complaints about A’s behaviour including her non engagement and they agree to organise a meeting to share information and discuss the case.
A short time later the landlord receives a further report about windows being smashed and police cutting out the door to gain entry due to reports from A and local residents that she is being assaulted by B. The Landlord carries out emergency repairs and organises further support for A.
Multi Agency Approach
The landlord was invited to a Mappa meeting with officers from the police, probation services, the local authority and domestic violence unit to share information and discuss how they could work together to progress the case. At the meeting, the landlord learned that;
- A did not engage with support services.
- B was not adhering to the conditions of his probation.
- B had a community order in place that prohibited him from staying at our property which he was not adhering to.
- A had been arrested for stabbing B and was on bail not to contact him
- Despite the bail conditions and the community order A & B were still in contact with each other.
- Following a further incident of violence there were grave concerns for the safety of A and a Domestic Violence Protection Notice was put in place for 28 days.
The partners discussed whether there was anything else they could do to prevent A & B from contacting each other and stop the ASB at the property.
The landlord advised the meeting that they would apply for a without notice injunction with power of arrest (POA) and exclusion from the area for B and that they would mirror the prohibitions contained in the DVPN in their application. The landlord also advised the meeting that as they were continuing to receive complaints about the behaviour of A they were intending to apply for a separate on notice injunction for her behaviour in which they would include a prohibition that she must not allow B to visit her at her property.
Probation officers and other agencies provided witness statements about B’s behaviour to the landlord who was successful in obtaining separate interim injunction orders for both A & B.
B defended the injunction and exclusion stating that he had family in the area which he wished to visit, however, both the injunction and exclusion were upheld with a final order granted for two years. B also breached the injunction, he was arrested and remanded in custody, however, the landlord did not pursue committal proceedings as B was serving a lengthy prison sentence for other matters.
Alerting The Community
Following B’s application, the police publicised his injunction and exclusion by delivering a letter and photograph to the local community. The letter contained information about the injunction and exclusion area and advised residents of how to report a breach of the injunction, including details of how to remain anonymous if they wished.
A did not challenge the landlord’s injunction application which she breached twice. Following the second breach the landlord issued possession proceedings which A did not challenge, the landlord was granted possession of the property and A was evicted.
By working together, sharing information, and providing evidence to each other, the landlord was able to take action against both A who was a victim of domestic violence but also a perpetrator of nuisance and anti-social behaviour and B who was a perpetrator with a history of violence. The action stopped the ASB which enabled the community to have peaceful enjoyment of their homes.