Reasonable and suitable alternative accommodation definitions

'Reasonable' means having regard to both the interests of the parties concerned and the public's interests. 

A number of factors can be taken into account, such as: 

• the reason for and the seriousness of the breach

• whether the tenant has had an opportunity to remedy the breach

• whether the breach has been remedied

• the effect of the tenant's conduct on others

• consequences of eviction for the tenant and their family

• whether any further breaches have occurred in the run up to the haring or trial

Local authority and other social landlords should follow the steps outlined in the Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords before pursuing possession proceedings for rent arrears or on a mandatory ground.

Disability discrimination

A person has a protected characteristic if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities.[1] A possession claim that is issued for a reason arising in consequence of the tenant's disability can be defended on the basis of unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Arguing that discrimination has taken place could form part of a defence or a counterclaim in possession proceedings.[2]

Social landlords

The Department for Communities and Local Government makes it clear in its guidance that an application for possession should be a last resort for a social landlord.[3] The court can consider issues such as homelessness and mental health but, where the outcome of a homelessness application is not clear-cut, it is wrong for the court to try to pre-empt the council's decision when considering whether it is reasonable to grant possession.[4]

'Suitable alternative accommodation' must give comparable security of tenure as that already enjoyed, such as a secure, protected or assured tenancy. In allocating a property, the landlord must have regard to the household's needs, this could include location of workplace and support networks. Some needs are more important than others.

In one case, a tenant refused an offer of alternative accommodation as the property did not have a garden. A possession order was made. The judge felt that the alternative property was suitable because the use of a garden was only one of the tenant's needs and was not as important as others. The tenant's appeal to the Court of Appeal failed. The court confirmed that the garden was a relevant matter but would not interfere with the way the judge had exercised his discretion.[5]

There is no requirement that an offer of suitable alternative accommodation has to be made before the date of the possession hearing, nor that suitability has to be determined by reference to a particular property.[6]