As part of our ASB Awareness Week series, this article outlines two key legal remedies available to social landlords when addressing anti-social behaviour (ASB):

1. ASB Injunctions under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; and
2. Possession Proceedings.

ASB Injunctions - key features

• Commonly obtained by registered providers of social housing and local authorities.
• Can require a Defendant to stop certain behaviour (a negative requirement) or take specific action (a positive requirement).
• Available against both tenants and non-tenants.
• Can be granted without notice, allowing urgent action where necessary.
• Where the conduct involves violence, threatened violence, or a significant risk of harm, the court can attach a power of arrest to relevant terms of the injunction.
• Breach of an injunction amounts to contempt of court (proved to the criminal standard) and can trigger the mandatory ground for possession.

A significant advantage of an injunction is that breach can result in imprisonment, a fine, or both. 

It is therefore an effective tool where behaviour needs to be controlled, but permanent removal from the property is not yet necessary.

Possession Proceedings - key features

• Seek to end the tenancy and recover possession of the property.
• The court must grant possession where a mandatory ground is established. Where a discretionary ground is relied upon, possession will only be granted if the court considers it reasonable.
• Possession orders may be:
  • Outright, requiring the tenant to leave by a specified date; or
  • Suspended, allowing the tenant to remain, provided they comply with conditions imposed by the court.
• If the tenant does not vacate as required, the landlord must obtain a warrant of possession to enforce the order through County Court bailiffs.
• Unless possession is granted on a mandatory ground, tenants may apply to suspend the warrant, which can delay enforcement.

Choosing the appropriate remedy

There is no single solution for every case. The most appropriate course of action will depend on the specific circumstances.

When deciding whether to pursue an injunction or possession proceedings, landlords should consider:

• Severity of the behaviour – Injunctions are often suitable as an early intervention measure. Serious or high-risk behaviour may justify possession proceedings, either alone or alongside an injunction.
• Proportionality and vulnerability – Both remedies can have significant consequences. Eviction may result in homelessness, while breach of an injunction can lead to imprisonment. In less serious cases, possession proceedings may be disproportionate.
• Alternative interventions – Before commencing legal action, consideration should be given to less intrusive measures, such as warning letters, referrals to support services, or acceptable behaviour agreements. Legal action is often more readily justified where these measures have failed.
• Effectiveness of the remedy – Injunctions are generally appropriate where behaviour can be managed or deterred. Possession proceedings may be necessary where ASB is persistent, serious, and unlikely to improve.

Conclusion

ASB injunctions and possession proceedings serve distinct but complementary functions in addressing anti-social behaviour.

The choice between them should be guided by the nature and seriousness of the conduct, balancing proportionality, practicality, and the impact on victims and the wider community. Selecting the right remedy at the right time can help ensure an effective and fair outcome.

For further information on ASB injunctions or possession proceedings, please contact me.