Persons Unknown Injunctions

Providers of Social Housing are often at the frontline of tackling ASB even when the perpetrators are not their tenants.  It’s not uncommon for landlords to have to take legal action against a tenant’s partner or relative but what about circumstances whereby the identity of the perpetrator is a complete unknown? In such cases, landlords may need to consider applying for an antisocial behaviour injunction against ‘persons unknown’.

Persons unknown injunctions are open to all applicants, but the nature of the orders mean that they will be a favoured tool of Local Authorities and Registered providers of social housing. These injunctions have been used with particular success in cases of trespass on land by protesters or travellers, high-speed vehicle racing and unauthorised car meets, and areas targeted as hotspots for drug misuse.

Whilst it may be difficult to identify the name of the perpetrator(s) it may well be possible to describe them, or even to identify them as a class of persons for instance by the nature of the activity engaged in or the location in which they are congregating. The Court will expect the class of persons to be sufficiently and specifically defined and for any known individuals to be identified. Efforts should be taken to identify the perpetrators where possible and these efforts should be evidenced within the application.  Any such application will also require full disclosure.

Even when the proposed defendants cannot be individually named, notice of any such injunction must still be properly given. Depending upon the nature of the case this could include public signage or even the use of media publicity and QR codes. The method of notification of the injunction would need to be determined by the Court and prescribed in the order. The terms of the injunction itself should be clear and precise so that the prohibited behaviours are easily understood. The geographical area to which the injunction applies should also be unambiguous.  

‘Newcomer Injunctions’ have been heavily scrutinised but are ultimately permitted by the Court. In these instances, the Court is able to grant injunctions which also bite when people who weren’t identified as engaging in the prohibited behaviour at the time of the injunction application but do so during the life of the injunction itself.  Anyone found to have breached the injunction would thereafter become a named party to the proceedings.

Finally, the nature of the behaviour attracting the use of these injunctions usually means that applicants request orders of lengthy duration. On that basis, the Court is likely to request that a review hearing be conducted, possibly annually, to ensure that the injunction is still required and appropriate.  As usual, the requested duration of the final injunction should be reasonable and necessary in consideration of the behaviour concerned and the likely ongoing risk of the same.

If the proposed changes are brought in by the Crime and Policing Bill, Registered Providers may soon have the ability to pursue Closure Orders themselves. In certain circumstances this may provide a faster and easier means of addressing these issues, albeit for shorter periods of time.