New Vetting and Barring Scheme: An update

In our November 2009 update, we reported to you on a New Vetting and Barring Scheme (the 'Scheme') that may require Registered Providers to check and monitor individuals engaging in certain activities with vulnerable groups.

The Scheme requires individuals working with children or vulnerable adults in relation to certain activities to register with the newly founded Independent Safeguarding Authority ('ISA') and be the subject of ongoing monitoring. Registered Providers will need to check whether employees and/or volunteers are ISA registered before allowing them to work with vulnerable groups in relation to certain activities, as well as report to the ISA where it considers such individuals may not be suitable for working with vulnerable groups. Registered Providers will be required to comply with these new duties from 1 November 2010.

As a result of widespread criticism, the Scheme is due to be scaled down. As a result, Registered Providers may no longer need to make enquiries in relation to individuals engaging in some activities with vulnerable groups that previously fell within the scope of the Scheme. For example, where such activities take place only once a month. Further plans to scale down the Scheme are being considered.  A public consultation is in progress which is due to be completed in June 2010. Penningtons will monitor any developments and keep you updated.

To find out more, please contact Linda Burke

Housing and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995

The Court of Appeal has held that a Housing Association had not discriminated unlawfully against a disabled tenant under the DDA by refusing to amend its conditions of tenancy to allow her to keep a dog.

In Drum Housing Association v Thomas Ashley (2010), the Association granted an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to a tenant who had suffered from bipolar disorder and had been detained previously under the Mental Health Act. Drum HA's own lease of the property prohibited any pets without the superior landlord's consent. In turn Drum's tenancy agreement with its tenants prohibited the keeping of pets.

The tenant took in a dog without consent and the superior landlord wrote to Drum demanding that the dog be removed within 7 days otherwise it would take steps to forfeit the head lease. Consequently, Drum served their tenant with a Notice under s21 Housing Act 1988 requiring possession of the proeprty and subsequently issued proceedings and obtained a possession order. This was despite their tenant instructing solicitors and obtaining a medical report supporting her keeping the dog as it was essential to her rehabilitation.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal the tenant argued that: (i) the term prohibiting keeping pets made it impossible or unreasonably difficult for her to enjoy her flat; (ii) the term would not have that effect if she were not disabled; and, (iii) the association had failed to take reasonable steps to change the term of the tenancy.

Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The right to enjoy the flat could not extend to an activity that was prohibited by the terms of the Tenancy Agreement. In any event it would have been unreasonable to require the Associaition to change the terms of the tenancy so as to allow the defendant to keep her dog because it would have caused the head landlord to forfeit the Association's lease.

To find out more, please contact Colin Hammond

Housing and anti social behaviour

The government has launched a new information programme for tenants and residents to control anti social behaviour which has included media advertising and the distribution of ten million copies of the leaflet 'Tackling anti social behaviour'. A copy can be downloaded here.

To find out more, please contact Emma Evans

Team news

Promotions