Hearsay in possession claims

Mr and Mrs James were assured tenants. The housing association claimed possession for rent arrears and also alleged that they and their children had carried

out a catalogue of antisocial behaviour. The tenants admitted rent arrears and one minor incident. The issue was whether there had been the substantial further antisocial behaviour alleged and, if so, whether the possession order should be an outright or conditional order.

The judge heard evidence from witnesses but the association also relied on the “hearsay” evidence of: identified witnesses (including police officers) who did not attend the trial; and unidentified witnesses described as too frightened to attend trial.

He decided the association had proved that the family had been terrorising the neighbourhood for two years or so and granted an outright order.

The tenants appealed, contending the judge had been wrong to admit and place reliance on so much hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It said the tenants had not exercised their right to apply for an order requiring the attendance of the witnesses who could be identified.

In relation to the anonymous witnesses, the evidence that they were too frightened to attend was plain. Because it was a civil case, the hearsay was admissible and the judge had not given it excessive weight. It had been used to support “live evidence”. There had been no infringement of the tenants’ right to a fair trial.