Court decision reinforces hefty damages after unlawful eviction

A Supreme Court decision means that statutory damages for unlawful eviction should be calculated in the same way, whether the property is social housing or owned by a private sector landlord.

The Solicitors' Journal reports that the judgment in Loveridge (AP) v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth means that, in certain cases, substantial damages will be awarded if an eviction is unlawful.

The court found that the claimant, Harry Loveridge, was unlawfully evicted by Lambeth council; he was abroad at the time of the eviction but still paying his rent and had all his personal possessions in the property.

Full statutory damages were awarded by the trial judge and reinstated by the Supreme Court because, after entering the property, it was not reasonable for the council to believe Loveridge was not living there, there was nothing in Loveridge's conduct which would warrant a reduction in damages and the council did not offer to reinstate the claimant in the property.

The decision effectively means the same would have been the case had the property been privately owned and the eviction undertaken by a private landlord in similar circumstances.

Loveridge was awarded £90,500 in statutory damages and £9,000 for the loss of his personal possessions.

The Solicitors' Journal reports that the court found that when calculating statutory damages the effect on the value of the landlord's building of the tenant's security of tenure before eviction was crucial.

The Supreme Court decided that the appeal court was wrong to consider what would actually happen after a sale to a willing buyer. The fact that a secure tenancy would be downgraded to an assured tenancy after sale to a private sector buyer was held to be irrelevant, the journal reports.

Barrister Michael Paget of Cornerstone Barristers, who acted for Loveridge, commented: "The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Housing Act 1988 applies to all landlords equally, with a potential heavy penalty when a tenant with significant security of tenure is unlawfully evicted. Trying to regain possession without using the courts may not be worth it."

He continued: "This statutory damages dog has an awful bite but there is absolutely no reason at all to get bitten. Where the evicted tenant had significant security then full statutory damages will be significant, but no landlord should end up being subject to a full award. Where a mistake is made by the landlord it should be corrected as quickly as possible. Lawfully enforcing a possession order through the courts is by far the safest way to guarantee vacant possession."