Define Conduct

If it decided a tenant’s conduct was anti-social, Midland Heart could and did apply to a court for an injunction against a Black tenant.

For years, the tenant complained about the landlord’s service failure, and its all-white executive board. Midland Heart’s response to his complaints went from inviting him to give up his tenancy to the injunction.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“2014 Act”) gave Midland Heart the same discretionary powers as s153A did.

This website believes how Midland Heart has used s153A to pick and choose what type of conduct was anti-social behaviour was “artificially wide” and “oppressive”.

As they relate to social landlords, both s153A and s2 say “anti-social behaviour” means:

“Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.

s153A did not define the type of “conduct”. Nor does section 2 of the 2014 Act.

That has meant Midland Heart could and did restrict a Black tenant’s freedom of expression.

According to Midland Heart the tenant’s use of the following was anti-social conduct: the phrases “racist”, “white supremacist”, and any reference to methods used to control Black slaves’ behaviour.

Defining use of the phrase “racist” and “white supremacist” as anti-social conduct, impacts non-white tenants’ freedom of expression more than white. In other words, it is an act of indirect discrimination.

It is hard to believe Midland Heart has use s153A the way parliament intended.

Without a list of the type of “conduct” defined as anti-social, Midland Heart is free to use section 2 of the 2014 Act as it did s153A.

This website call for a legal list of what type of conduct is anti-social.