Another look at hoarding? - Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership
June 5, 2025

Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership – Another look at Hoarding?

In the recent case of Catherine Thiam (a Protected Party, by her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) v Richmond Housing Partnership[2025] EWHC 933 (KB) the High Court dismissed an appeal and found that a social landlord who successfully obtained possession of its property from a tenant who was a hoarder, acted proportionately pursuant to s.15(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), which concerns discrimination arising from disability.


Crux of the Possession Claim

The possession claim trial was heard by His Honour Judge Luba KC in the County Court.


Occupying the property under an assured tenancy, the tenant, Catherine Thiam, had a hoarding disorder which stemmed from delusional disorder as a consequence of simple schizophrenia. The tenant’s condition therefore amounted to a disability under s.6 of the 2010 Act, which was accepted by the Judge. Though the tenant’s disability was informally diagnosed, the tenant failed to obtain medical treatment for her disability and also failed to engage with support referrals made by the landlord.


The landlord, Richmond Housing Partnership (a registered provider of social housing), sought possession of its property successfully relying on grounds 8, 12, 13, and 14 as set out in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988:

  • Ground 8, the tenant was in serious rent arrears of some £18,000.
  • Ground 14, nuisance, annoyance, illegal or immoral use of the property due to the anti-social behaviour of the tenant’s son who also lived at the property.
  • Ground 12, breach of tenancy conditions as the tenant repeatedly failed to provide access to the property to the landlord and those who were to undertake maintenance work on behalf of the landlord.
  • Ground 13, deterioration in the condition of the property; videos and photos showed the condition of the property to be in very poor condition. The front and rear gardens full of overgrown and unkept vegetation, a massive number of black bags and other discarded household items. The property was unsightly, smelly and was said to encourage vermin. The Judge heard that the tenant had 50 guinea pigs in the garden and the garden could not be accessed because of the items outside.


The tenant’s legal representative unsuccessfully made a submission to have the application for possession dismissed, asserting that the landlord’s decision to seek possession amounted to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability, and asked the court to refuse to grant possession by exercising its discretion under s.7(4) of the Housing Act 1988.


The Judge then considered s.15(1)(b) of the 2010 Act.

 

Judge Luba accepted that the landlord sought possession of the property because of the tenant’s hoarding which arises in consequence of her disability, and concluded that the landlord could show that seeking possession of its property was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim on the facts of this case.


Referring to the landlord at paragraph 54 of his judgement Judge Luba said, ‘It wishes to see premises that it owns maintained by its tenants in a condition which does not lead to them being an eyesore, being a harbourage for rodents, and generating smells causing nuisance and other unpleasantness to those in the locality’. ‘It also, obviously is a legitimate aim to ensure that tenants pay their rent and comply with their condition of tenancy.’ Possession was therefore granted.

 

The High Court Appeal

The tenant appealed the decision to the High Court. The three grounds for the appeal were:

1.     The landlord did not, when commencing the possession proceedings, recognise that the tenant’s hoarding was a consequence of her disability.


2.     The landlord had not put in place specialist intervention.


3.     The landlord had not made an application to the Court of Protection.


The High Court dismissed all 3 grounds of the appeal.


First ground

The High Court concluded that whether the landlord considered the tenant to be disabled and whether or not the landlord formed a view that there was or might be any connection between the tenant’s disability and the conduct that caused the landlord to decide to seek possession is not central to, and cannot be determinative of, whether the landlord seeking possession of the property was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.


In this case, it was more important for the court to consider what the landlord did and what the landlord might have done further before deciding to seek possession. As well as making referrals to support the tenant with her disability, the landlord had obtained an injunction in 2019 which included provision for the tenant to clear the property of rubbish. The landlord also completed an assessment which clearly illustrated that the landlord had regard to the tenant’s disability when the decision to seek possession was taken.


Second ground

The High Court judge did not accept this submission as the landlord had made numerous referrals in attempt to obtain support for the tenant. It had made referrals to Adult Social Services, Children’s Social Services, the landlord’s own home treatment team, the police, and multi-agency forums. This showed the lengths the landlord went to when seeking to address the tenant’s hoarding problem.


The High Court judge did not consider it necessary for the landlord itself to engage specialist help for the tenant as taking such steps would go beyond anything that is ordinarily or reasonably within the ambit of a landlord and tenant relationship. Specialist intervention would be the responsibility of social services rather than the landlord.


The High Court also noted the likely cost of acquiring specialist intervention and the limited resources of social landlords.

Finally, the High Court stated that the proportionality obligation under s.15(1)(b) of the 2010 Act, did not require the landlord to retain specialist assistance because, in all likelihood, any such assistance would have been futile. This was because the tenant’s delusional disorder resulting from simple schizophrenia was untreated as the tenant did not wish to receive medical help. Therefore, until the tenant agreed to medical treatment, the conditions necessary for the specialist intervention to make any progress with helping the tenant could not exist.


Third ground

The tenant’s counsel submitted that the landlord should have made an application to the Court of Protection before seeking possession of the property. It was said that such an application may have led to an order allowing the landlord to enter the property and remove the waste inside and outside the property. The High Court found that an application by the landlord to the Court of Protection would have been speculative.


Although the tenant was being represented by the Official Solicitor in this case, the tenant was party to other proceedings 2 years prior and, in those proceedings, there was no question that the tenant lacked capacity. The High Court stated that, even if the issue of capacity were overcome, it was unclear what order might have been sought on an application to the Court of Protection by the landlord.


The High Court also stated that if the landlord were to have made a speculative application to the Court of Protection this would have led the landlord to incur significant expenditure on litigation, which would have been disproportionate and would go beyond any step that could legitimately or reasonably be expected of a landlord in this case.


What this case means for social landlords

The court will consider each case on its own facts by taking an objective approach. This applies not only in cases where a tenant is a hoarder, but where a tenant has a disability or there are concerns that the tenant may have a disability or vulnerability, it is imperative for social landlords to ensure that before seeking possession of its property, it has acted proportionally based on the circumstances. Some key things to consider are: 


1.     Take reasonable steps to support a tenant by making referrals to relevant statutory services such as social services,       multi-agencies, any in-house tenancy support, and/or medical practitioners.


2.     Consider seeking an injunction order as part of a graduated response.


3.     Complete a justification assessment setting out the reasoning and considerations had before seeking possession.


Author: Vanessa Wilson

By Joseph Warren November 14, 2025
This note will be updated as secondary legislation is published. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 ("the Act") became law on 27 October 2025. Its provisions will come into force in phases, with the Social Rented Sector being brought into the new tenancy system in 2027 (please see the commencement section below). This guidance note covers: ■ The abolition of fixed term tenancies ■ The abolition of Assured Shorthold tenancies ■ New and amended grounds for possession of Assured tenancies ■ Updates to Court considerations for ASB ■ Changes to rent increase procedures ■ Prohibition of rent in advance ■ Changes to Notices to Quit from tenants ■ Shared Ownership leases ■ Pets ■ Commencement – when does this all apply to Social Landlords? 1. The abolition of fixed term tenancies From when the Act comes into force, you can only grant periodic assured tenancies. They'll run week by week or month by month, depending on the rental period. So if rent is due monthly, you'll have a month-by-month periodic tenancy. The Act prohibits rental periods longer than a month. You can grant an assured tenancy with a period of up to 28 days (weekly, fortnightly, or 28-day periods) or a monthly period. Where an existing tenancy has a period exceeding a month (e.g. quarterly), it becomes a monthly periodic tenancy. The Act contains a calculation for recalculating the rent in these circumstances. 2. The abolition of Assured Shorthold tenancies When the Act comes into force, you can no longer grant Assured Shorthold tenancies ("ASTs"). This also means you can no longer use Notices under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. Any cases where you've already served a Section 21 notice will not convert to an Assured tenancy. The Section 21 notice remains valid until: Any court proceedings based on the Section 21 notice are concluded, or The Section 21 ceases to be valid due to time (i.e. after 6 months from the date of the notice or 3 months from the commencement of the relevant part of the Act, whichever is soonest). You'll need to review your Starter Tenancy regime. Your options are to either withdraw it entirely or amend it so the Starter tenancy is an Assured tenancy from the outset but with restricted rights during the starter period (such as excluding the Right to Exchange or limiting succession rights). The Regulator of Social Housing is likely to provide more guidance on this shortly. It's anticipated that, because of the need to consult on and introduce a new Tenancy Standard, ASTs may be abolished for private landlords before they're abolished for social landlords (although the ability to grant new ASTs may be curtailed in the meantime). 3. Amended Grounds for possession 3.1 Notice periods Notice periods for Grounds 8, 10, and 11 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 will extend to 4 weeks (from the current 2 weeks). Ground 7A will have an immediate notice period when the Act comes into force, the same as Ground 14 currently does. Both ASB grounds will therefore have the same notice period. This notice period also overrides any other grounds' notice period. There are seemingly no plans to amend the Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords. You'll still need to offer tenants the opportunity to request a review of a notice served on Ground 7A (and/or any other mandatory grounds) before you can commence proceedings. 3.2 New Grounds for possession There are many new grounds for possession to assist in situations where you may previously have used an AST. We set out below the ones which may be most useful to you: Ground 1B (mandatory) – Use this ground to seek possession of properties let via Assured tenancies pursuant to a rent-to-buy agreement where the rent-to-buy period has expired. For this ground to apply, the rent-to-buy agreement must cap the rent at no more than 80% of market rent and must notify the tenant that they'll be offered the opportunity to purchase the property within at least 5 years (or 10 years in London). Before seeking possession, you must comply with the requirements for offering the property to the tenant. You can only seek possession where, following the granting of possession, you intend to (a) sell the property or (b) grant a lease of more than 21 years or (c) grant an assured tenancy to another person. Ground 2ZA (mandatory) – Use this ground where your superior lease has come to an end. This ground is only available for providers of social housing and agricultural landlords, persons who hold the dwelling for the purposes of making it supported accommodation, or companies majority owned by a local authority. Ground 5B (mandatory) – Use this ground where you let a property in connection with the tenant's employment, someone else now requires it in connection with their employment, and the original tenant no longer needs it for their employment. Ground 5D (mandatory) – Use this ground where the tenancy contained a specific requirement connected with the tenant's employment and the tenant no longer fulfils that requirement. Ground 5E (mandatory) – Use this ground where you hold the property for providing supported accommodation and the tenant didn't enter the tenancy for the purposes of receiving care, support, or supervision. Ground 5F (mandatory) – Use this ground where you granted the tenancy to provide the tenant with support services for a limited time to enable them to live in other accommodation in the future, and that period has ended. Ground 5G (mandatory) – Use this ground where the occupation was to assist the local authority with a section 193 homelessness duty and that duty has ended. Ground 5H (mandatory) – Use this ground where the tenant's occupation was based on meeting eligibility conditions (such as age, work, or seeking work), the tenancy set out those conditions, and the tenant no longer meets them. Ground 6A (mandatory) – Use this ground to obtain possession of a property you let to a tenant (or their predecessors in title) whilst their original property (which you also let to them) was being redeveloped. You must have alternative accommodation (which may be the original, now redeveloped, property) available for the tenant when the possession order takes effect. Ground 6B (mandatory) – Use this ground to obtain possession where: ■ You need possession to comply with: ○ A banning order under section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 ○ An improvement notice under sections 11 and/or 12 of the Housing Act 2004 (but only where overcrowding is specified as the cause of the hazard) ○ A prohibition order under sections 20 and/or 21 of the Housing Act 2004 (which prohibits use of (a) the property (or any part of it), or (b) the common parts (or any part of them)) ○ An enforcement notice issued under sections 172 or 182 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ○ A breach of condition notice served under section 187A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ○ An injunction granted under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ○ A listed building enforcement notice served under sections 38, 45, or 46 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ○ An injunction granted under section 44A of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ■ The property is an HMO which requires licensing (including selective licensing) but (a) the Local Authority has refused the licence or (b) the Local Authority has revoked the licence, or (c) the property is occupied by more persons than permitted under any licence. Ground 6B may give rise to a compensation payment (assessed by the court) payable to the tenant. Where the notice/order is made under the Housing Act 2004, it may also give rise to a home loss and/or disturbance payment from the Local Authority which made the order. Ground 18 (discretionary) – Use this ground where the tenancy is of supported accommodation and the tenant has unreasonably refused to co-operate with the person providing support services. 3.3 Amended Grounds of Possession The Act amends many grounds of possession. We set out below the ones which may be most useful to you: Ground 6 (mandatory redevelopment ground) – You can use the amended redevelopment ground to obtain possession of a property where you need to carry out redevelopment works (demolition, rebuilding, or substantial works to the property or the building containing it) which cannot be completed with the tenant remaining in situ (or where the tenant has refused to vary the tenancy to enable the works). You must undertake the works yourself. The tenancy must (except in the case of compulsory purchase) have commenced at least 6 months before the date on which you could commence possession proceedings (as specified in the Section 8 notice). You can only use this ground if you were (a) the landlord when the tenancy was granted or (b) became the landlord after the tenancy was granted, but only where the transfer to you was not for money (or money's worth). You must also have alternative accommodation available for the tenant when the possession order takes effect. Alternatively, you may offer temporary accommodation as an interim measure until long-term alternative accommodation is available. You don't need to offer alternative accommodation where (a) the tenancy wasn't granted pursuant to a nomination as mentioned in section 159(2)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 and (b) you gave the tenant notice of your intention to rely on Ground 6 before the tenancy commenced (and that notice specified the period in which redevelopment works would commence). Using Ground 6 may still give rise to the need to pay home loss and/or disturbance payments. Ground 8 (mandatory rent ground) – The arrears threshold has increased from 8 weeks to 13 weeks (or from two to three months, if rent is payable monthly). You also cannot include amounts expected to be received from benefits. References to quarterly and yearly rent will be removed as these will no longer be permitted. 4. Updates to Court considerations for ASB Section 9A of the Housing Act 1988 now includes a new element. This section relates to what a court should consider when deciding possession under the ASB Ground 14. Judges must now also take into account: "whether the person against whom the order is sought has co-operated with any attempt by the landlord to encourage the conduct to cease." This is likely to refocus judges' attention on your escalation attempts at curbing ASB, such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, warnings, referrals for support, and injunctions. 5. Changes to rent increase procedures The Act creates a new Section 13A of the Housing Act 1988. You must follow the Section 13A procedure for rent increases, either by (1) a new prescribed form (yet to be revealed) under Section 13A(2) or (2) by an agreement between you and the tenant (which is likely to include a term in the tenancy agreement setting out a different method of increase) under Section 13A(6). In most cases, follow the procedure set out in your tenancy agreement as normal, except where the tenancy is silent OR where it refers to the Section 13 process. In those cases, apply the new Section 13A process. Section 13A states you can increase rent as follows: ■ Serve a notice in the prescribed form proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy. That period must be: ○ At least 1 month after the date you serve the notice ○ At least 52 weeks after the previous increase or determination took effect "Determination" means determination on application by the tenant to a Tribunal. This has an unintended consequence: if a tenant challenges the increase and asks a Tribunal to determine the rent, that determination date becomes the new rent increase date for the following year. You may then have scattered tenancies out of sync with the rest for subsequent increases. 6. Prohibition of rent in advance You cannot take or demand any rent before the signing of a tenancy agreement. 7. Changes to Notices to Quit from tenants Tenants must give 2 months' notice to quit by default in the absence of any other agreement. If your tenancy agreement specifies a shorter period (such as 1 month, which is common in the sector), that period applies. However, the 2-month period applies if you cannot locate the original tenancy agreement or if the tenancy agreement is silent on the notice period. 8. Shared Ownership leases Shared Ownership Leases are currently a form of Assured tenancy. When the Act takes effect, they'll be reclassified as long leases. This changes how you enforce breaches. Notices – You can no longer use a Section 8 notice (NOSP) for lease breaches. Instead, follow this 2-stage process: Obtain a determination of the breach from the Tribunal or County Court (or get an admission from the leaseholder) Serve a notice under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 Possession proceedings – If the breach isn't remedied after the notice process, you'll need to pursue possession based on forfeiture. This is anecdotally harder to achieve. The Court has wide powers to grant relief from forfeiture, and there are no mandatory possession routes. Be aware: you can 'waive' a breach by accepting rent or otherwise treating the lease as continuing during the possession process. Existing notices – If you've already served a NOSP before this part of the Act commences, it remains valid. You can enforce it via the Section 8 Housing Act route, and that shared ownership lease stays assured. Section 8 Notices remain valid for 12 months . 9. What about pets? No changes in the social housing sector for non-market rent properties. In the private sector, tenants will have a right to request consent to keep a pet. Landlords cannot unreasonably withhold that consent. 10. Commencement – when does this all apply to Social Landlords? The government published its implementation roadmap on 13 November 2025, setting out a phased approach to bringing the Act into force. Key dates: 27 December 2025 (2 months after Royal Assent): ● Shared ownership leases cease to be assured tenancies (see Section 8) ● Investigatory powers for local authorities come into effect ● Local authorities begin reporting requirements 1 May 2026: ● Main reforms commence for the private rented sector only ● All existing and new private tenancies move to the new system ● This includes: abolition of Section 21, transition to periodic tenancies, rent increase limits, bidding ban, pet requests, and discrimination measures Late 2026: ● PRS Database operational ● PRS Landlord Ombudsman operational 2027: ● Social Rented Sector brought into the new tenancy system ● This will follow consultation on a new Tenancy Standard ● Specific date within 2027 to be confirmed by Regulations TBC (but likely after 2035): ● Decent Homes Standard extended to private rented sector ● Awaab's Law extended (subject to consultation) The staggered approach means private landlords will be subject to the main reforms from 1 May 2026, but social landlords will not be brought into the new system until 2027. The Regulator of Social Housing is expected to provide further guidance on the transition for social landlords, including the consultation on the new Tenancy Standard.
October 10, 2025
ASB Case Reviews: updated statutory guidance
July 9, 2025
Awaab’s Law – Coming on 27 October 2025
February 26, 2025
What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store for ASB and Housing Providers
January 23, 2025
Are you prepared for Awaab's law?
By Joseph Warren October 21, 2024
Is an exceptional level of RPI good reason to depart from an increase in pitch fees at that level? – Mobile Homes Act 1983
By Daryl Bigwood October 14, 2024
Cobb Warren were recently successful in an appeal against the decision of a District Judge to refuse an application to include a positive requirement in an injunction pursuant to Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 ("the 2014 Act"). This took place in October in front of a Circuit Judge in the County Court at Bristol. Our client sought to include a provision requiring the respondent to engage with support services to help address the underlying causes of the anti-social behaviour the respondent engaged in. The District Judge at first instance refused the application on the basis that such an order would amount to an order of mandamus (orders of mandamus have, since 2004, been known as ‘mandatory orders’ - they are specific to public law matters) and therefore, pursuant to section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984. The District Judge said that the County Court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order. The appeal was argued on two points: 1. The order was not an order of mandamus (or mandatory order) as such orders are remedies in public law proceedings only and not private law proceedings; or 2. In any event, even if it were, the 2014 Act creates a separate statutory scheme which enables the County Court to include any positive requirements in an injunction in order to prevent the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour. The Circuit Judge hearing the appeal allowed the appeal on both grounds. In respects of the second ground, we advanced an argument that the decision in Swindon Borough Council v Abrook [2024] EWCA Civ 221 supported the ground as: 1. The Court of Appeal determined that the Court’s usual case management powers to vary or set aside an order of its own volition did not apply to injunctions under the 2014 Act. This was therefore indicative of the 2014 Act creating its own statutory scheme. 2. The Court of Appeal was considering an appeal from the decision of a District Judge in the County Court and determined, at paragraph 109 of that earlier judgment that a Court should consider making positive requirements. Therefore, the Court of Appeal seemingly accepted that positive requirements were available in the County Court. Overall, we achieved a good outcome for our client and obtained clarity as to the use of positive requirements. Such requirements can often be more effective in addressing anti-social behaviour, by addressing the causes of the behaviour, rather than simply prohibiting the behaviour itself. A review of the Court's powers in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour by the Civil Justice Council in 2020 emphasised the importance of including positive requirements in injunctions. One of its recommendation was to increase their use as a way of addressing underlying issue causing Anti-Social Behaviour. If you need to discuss the above case or require any guidance please get in touch with us.
September 12, 2024
Newsflash - Renters' Rights Bill 2024 
Show More