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