Complex Residential Possession Proceedings

Complex Residential Possession Proceedings (involving disrepair and harassment)– 9 February 2026 – Leeds County Court

An excellent result at trial yesterday at Leeds County Court in a highly contested residential possession claim. 3 years of litigation, a part-heard trial resumed after a year, and litigation capacity issues along the way. As far as possession claims go, this one had its fair share of plot twists.

What began as a straightforward claim for rent arrears evolved into complex proceedings, involving a multi-faceted counterclaim advanced by the tenant, including:

• Serious criminal allegations of harassment/intimidation and breach of quiet enjoyment said to have been orchestrated by the Landlord and/or his sons;
• A substantial disrepair claim, supported by expert evidence on both sides, with permission for oral evidence;
• A failure to protect a tenancy deposit claim.
• Challenges to the validity of the Section 8 notice, including whether Ground 8 under the Housing Act 1988 was satisfied, based on the tenant’s case that the contractual rent due date had been varied by agreement, affecting whether the required level of arrears existed at the date of service of the notice.

We came on the court record partway through the proceedings on behalf of the landlord. The case thereafter followed a lengthy and complex procedural course, including reallocation to the Multi-Track. When first listed for trial, the matter went part-heard and was adjourned, eventually being resumed a year later.

During the intervening period, a number of interlocutory arose, most notably concerning the claimant’s litigation capacity after he lost capacity to conduct the proceedings part-way through the trial. The proceedings also involved expert surveyor evidence on both sides, together with the oral evidence of multiple witnesses on a range of issues. The matter was ultimately listed for a four-day trial.

Following a trial before HHJ Gargan, the Court:

• Granted a possession order on discretionary Grounds 10 and 11 of the Housing Act 1988;
• Found substantial rent arrears of £24,500 due (following a limited set-off in respect of a modest counterclaim);
• Dismissed the harassment and intimidation claim in full.
• Rejected the majority of the disrepair allegations, allowing only a modest award;
• Awarded a limited tenancy deposit penalty;
• Ordered the tenant to pay 80% of the landlord’s costs;

We were ably supported by Mr Matthew Smith of Park Square Barristers, whose thorough cross-examination of the tenant was instrumental in undermining her credibility and drawing out the factual issues which ultimately informed the Court’s findings.

The Court would go on to prefer the landlord’s evidence on many of the key issues. We were able to demonstrate substantial rent arrears, a failure by the tenant to provide proper access for repairs, and a failure to report to the landlord many of the issues relied upon in support of the disrepair claim. This required the presentation of the evidence in a structured and forensic way, identifying matters which the landlord themselves would not necessarily have recognised as legally significant. Without that approach, it is likely the Court may have concluded that the landlord had notice of the alleged defects.

Most notably, we successfully defeated a substantial claim for harassment and intimidation. The Judge found there was little evidence to support the tenant’s allegations and that the claim on several allegations contained in a Scott Schedule did not meet the legal threshold for harassment under the applicable principles.

This was a technically demanding case involving overlapping issues across housing law, harassment, disrepair, principles of agency, expert evidence, and contractual interpretation.

A very positive result for our client after 3 years of litigation, and finally securing possession.

If you are a landlord facing defended possession proceedings or complex tenant counterclaims, we regularly deal with matters involving multiple and overlapping issues. We have experience managing cases where housing law, disrepair, and harassment all intersect, and we are accustomed to handling the procedural and legal complexity that these disputes often involve.