Glasgow sheriff rules eviction of social housing tenant who committed offences during psychotic relapse would not be proportionate

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC GLA 2
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff S Reid

Wheatley Homes Glasgow Ltd sought to recover possession of a property occupied by Yasmin Sharif, who was convicted of various offences involving anti-social behaviour between 2017 and 2021. The defender argued that evicting her would constitute disability discrimination and thus it was not reasonable to do so under section 16(2)(a) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.

The case was heard by Sheriff Stuart Reid, with DD Anderson, advocate, appearing for the pursuer and KT Young, advocate, appearing for the defender.

Successful medical intervention

The defender came to the UK from Somalia as a refugee in 2001 and commenced her tenancy in Glasgow in November 2003. She occupied the subjects with her two daughters, aged 18 and 21, and up until August 2017 no breach of the tenancy agreement was reported. For many years, including from 2017 to 2021, the defender suffered from a severe and enduring mental illness categorised as Unspecified Psychotic Disorder that, without proper medication, could result in an inability to distinguish delusion from reality.

In the summer of 2017, the defender stopped taking her prescribed anti-psychotic medication and disengaged from psychiatric support services. From August 2017 to July 2021, the defender was convicted of various offences of threatening and abusive behaviour, sometimes involving a weapon such as a brick or hammer, towards housing officers and members of the public, including the grant of an anti-social behaviour order of indefinite duration.

The pursuer served notice of proceedings for recovery of possession in November 2021. The defender was admitted to Stobhill Hospital for 10 days the following month and subsequently re-engaged with psychiatric treatment. Her recovery from her relapse into psychosis was described as significant and remarkable, with no incidents of anti-social behaviour reported since July 2021.

For the pursuer it was submitted that its legitimate aims as a landlord outweighed any speculative, weakly-evidenced consequence for the defender as tenant. Evidence of adverse impact on the defender arising from her eviction was said to be meagre. As for the unlawful discrimination defence, it was submitted that the evidence did not reliably establish that all the defender’s anti-social behaviour and criminal convictions arose as a consequence of her disability.

Counsel for the defender submitted that the eviction would be disproportionate because the behaviour complained of arose from her psychiatric disorder. Medical intervention had been successful in eliminating that behaviour, so the only “real” aim of the action was to reassure staff and other residents of the building.

Direct causative effect

In his decision, Sheriff Reid noted the difficulty of establishing a proportionality defence, saying: “I accept that a number of legitimate objectives are sought to be achieved here. The ‘twin aims’ of vindicating the pursuer’s proprietorial right and enforcing its powers of management over its own housing stock can safely be assumed. However, what emerges strongly from the evidence is that these aims are, in the particular circumstances of this case, ancillary objectives.”

He continued: “This is not a case where the pursuer seeks to recover possession from an unlawful occupier who, aside from Article 8 ECHR, either never had a right to possess or whose right has terminated. On the evidence, the primary and predominant objective of this repossession action is the removal of a source of nuisance to neighbours and staff. That objective is both intrinsic and manifest in the two grounds for recovery of possession founded upon by the pursuer.”

Noting that this was a legitimate objective in itself, Sheriff Reid went on to say of the defender’s condition: “The defender suffers from a diagnosed, significant mental disability which, following a relapse, has had a direct causative effect on the anti-social and criminal conduct now complained of. In contrast, in the preceding 14-year period prior to her psychotic relapse, the defender occupied the property, as a secure tenant, without breach, incident, or complaint regarding her conduct. In further contrast, in the most proximate period of over three years, the defender has also not engaged in any criminal or anti-social behaviour.”

He concluded: “In those circumstances, repossession is no longer a convincing or cogent means to achieve the pursuer’s primary objective - because the objective has already been achieved by other means. The impugned measure (eviction) is not “rationally connected” to the predominant objective or, at least, not rationally connected with any convincing strength or sufficiency.”

Sheriff Reid therefore refused to grant the order as craved and granted decree of absolvitor in favour of the defender.