Hoarders

Experience suggests that there can be few harder, more serious issues raised than those raised by hoarders.  Hoarding is a recognised psychological condition, commonly found alongside other psychological conditions.  For landlords, it raises a range of issues, including health and safety not just of the hoarder but also their household and other residents in the building.  Hoarding cases raise often intractable issues as the rights of the residents and the responsibilities of the landlord rub up against the rights of the hoarder, particularly under the Equality Act 2010.  Commonly, at least in the hardest cases, hoarders themselves do not recognise their illness.  The cases can take considerable time and effort to resolve, perhaps involving the Court of Protection and assessments of needs under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 as well as consideration of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, at a time when these resources are stretched by austerity, personnel and funding issues.  As we see in the following discussion, this might raise questions going forward in such cases (and other examples where proportionality is in issue).

In Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership [2025] EWHC 933 (KB), Swift J upheld a possession order made by HHJ Luba KC following a trial.  Ms Thiam was RHP’s tenant and they claimed possession based on £18k rent arrears as well as ASB, breach of an obligation under the tenancy agreement, and acts of waste by Ms Thiam.  Ms Thiam was a hoarder with a “delusion” that she maintained a business selling second hand clothes.  The description of her condition by the expert went as follows:

She was diagnosed with delusional disorder in or around 2008 and has a history of systematised, persecutory, and grandiose delusions.  She minimises the extent of hoarding in her home, is unable to recognise the extent of it, or have insight into it. She has aimlessness, is socially withdrawn, lacks initiative and motivation, and has delusional beliefs. The quality of her life declines without her understanding of it. Due to her lack of insight, she refuses help.

As is common in these cases (at least from my experience), Ms Thiam’s defence (through the official solicitor) was that RHP’s decision to seek possession amounted to unlawful discrimination under s 15, Equality Act 2010.  Even though RHP did not recognise that Ms Thiam had the protected characteristic of disability, it was tolerably clear that she did and that the claim was brought in consequence of that disability.  The question resolved down to whether RHP could show that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

In Birmingham CC v Stephenson [2016] EWCA Civ 1029, [22], the Court of Appeal expanded on the role of the Court in such cases (following the UKSC judgment in Aster Communities Ltd v Akerman-Livingstone [2015] UKSC 15) pointing out that it is incumbent on the landlord to show that no less drastic action than possession would be appropriate, and that other alternatives have been considered and reasons given for their rejection.  In Ms Thiam’s case, it was said that RHP should have sought and put in place specialist intervention or made an application to the Court of Protection.  RHP had referred Ms Thiam’s case to the local authority social services’ department, but had not engaged specialist hoarder services.

Swift J held that the proportionality exercise also required the court to take into account the context, including the contractual relationship between landlord and tenant.  As he put it

In this instance some relevant context is provided by the contractual relationship between RHP and the tenant, framed by the terms of the tenancy agreement. RHP has no relevant authority beyond this. It is not a local authority or a social services authority exercising statutory powers and having obligations to consider and promote the well-being of persons subject to illness or disability.

Ms Thiam’s appeal failed in part because of this point and the fact that RHP had gone to some lengths to address the hoarding “problem”.  There was no requirement on them to seek specialist help because, in addition to it being futile in this case, “Taking such a step would go well beyond anything ordinarily or, in the circumstances of this case, reasonably within the ambit of a landlord and tenant relationship”: [25].  As regards an application to the Court of Protection, that would have been speculative and costly – it “… would go well beyond any step that could legitimately be expected of a landlord and well beyond anything that could reasonably be considered as a requirement of a proportionate approach on the facts of this case”: [31].

Ms Thiam’s case was decided under English law.  Swift J’s reference to RHP not have obligations to consider and promote the well-being of Ms Thiam made me wonder whether Welsh registered social landlords would be in the same position.  They are not listed as public bodies in the Well-being of Future Generations Act, nor as I understand it are they exercising functions under the Social Services and Well-being Act.  So, in Wales, perhaps there would be the same outcome; but, thinking aloud, I wonder whether the ethos of these statutes and the requirement of co-operation at least in social care might change matters?  Thoughts welcome – but it does give me a moment to publicise my wonderful colleague, Dr Caer Smyth’s workshop on 18th June 2025 on Arbrofi: devolved jurisdictions as spaces for aspirational legislation as it is the 10th anniversary of the Well-being of Future Generations Act (Wales) Act 2015 (an Act which I have found inspirational during my time in Wales).