Hoarding in social housing: striking the right balance

Written by Nistha Sharma

Hoarding presents a growing challenge for social housing landlords, demanding a careful balance between protecting property and other residents, and recognising the rights and vulnerabilities of the tenant. This bulletin outlines key considerations for housing providers when responding to hoarding behaviours, with a particular focus on early identification, tenant engagement, and the importance of pre-litigation steps. It also highlights the legal framework around capacity, both litigation and Wookey capacity, and the need to ensure appropriate assessments and support are in place before legal action is pursued.

Capacity considerations in hoarding cases

When dealing with tenants who hoard, the starting point must always be to assess whether the individual has capacity, both in terms of litigation capacity and Wookey capacity.

Litigation capacity refers to a person’s ability to understand the issues involved in legal proceedings, and to provide instructions or make decisions, and whether they can do so independently or whether appropriate support is required. Wookey capacity goes further. It considers whether the individual is capable of understanding and applying the terms of a court order, and appreciating the consequences of breaching it. This concept is drawn from the case of Wookey v Wookey and is highly relevant in housing-related injunctions.

Although capacity is presumed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, this presumption can be challenged. Courts are increasingly willing to do so in hoarding cases, particularly where there are wider concerns, such as inability to manage daily living, poor hygiene, or apparent disengagement from necessary support.

Hoarding is frequently linked to underlying mental health issues, including trauma, bereavement, illness, or poverty. As such, these cases often require a sensitive and informed approach, including access to specialist support and mental health services.

Courts are right to approach these matters cautiously. Housing providers must also ensure that capacity is properly assessed and documented before initiating legal proceedings. Doing so helps avoid unnecessary delay, minimises the risk of challenge, and ensures any legal action is both proportionate and lawful.

Practical steps prior to an injunction

Courts expect housing providers to exhaust all practical and supportive avenues before resorting to civil proceedings. Best practice includes:

1. Engagement with tenants — Early, sensitive engagement can build trust. Approaching hoarding with compassion can encourage tenants to open up and seek help. Offering multiple channels of communication, including scheduled visits, phone calls, emails, and welfare checks, helps build a fuller picture. Where appropriate, offering financial assistance with clearance can provide an efficient, cost-effective solution and may be favourably viewed by the court.  
2. Objective measures — Tools such as the Clutter Image Rating Scale provide an objective assessment of the severity of hoarding and offer useful visual documentation if legal intervention becomes necessary
3. Hoarding policy — A clear, up-to-date hoarding policy should be in place and applied consistently before legal steps are taken.
4. Referrals — Multi-agency involvement is often essential. This includes referrals to adult social care, mental health services, and local support organisations.

Striking the right balance 

As public bodies, housing associations and local authorities are bound by public law duties, including those under the Equality Act 2010, requiring them to consider the impact of their decisions on vulnerable tenants. A well-documented record of support, referrals, and engagement is crucial. Only when all other options have been exhausted should legal action be pursued.

Evidence and witness statements

While there is no fixed rule on how many attempts must be made, the courts are clear: housing providers must show they have not rushed to litigation. Witness statements should be thorough and supported by evidence, including:

• Photographs
• Referrals
• Proportionality assessments
• Welfare checks
• Recent access attempts
• Correspondence with the tenant

A comprehensive evidence bundle will carry significant weight in court. Without it, there is a real risk that an injunction will be refused or granted on less favorable terms.

After the clearance

Clearing the property is often just the beginning. Relapse is common. Housing providers should have a clear post-clearance plan to prevent deterioration. This plan should be treated as a live document, with scheduled inspections, regular check-ins, and continued multi-agency support. The goal is long-term behavioral change, not just short-term compliance. Ultimately, in the event that relapse happens, and all other avenues have been exhausted, possession proceedings may be the only remaining option.

Conclusion

Courts are increasingly alive to the complexities of hoarding as both legal and social issues for landlords the message is clear. Support first and legal action used as a measure of last resort. landlords who offer a balanced, compassionate and structured approach will be best placed to protect their stock and withstand judicial scrutiny. 

If you are facing issues around hoarding and would like further advice around this topic, please do get in touch with our social housing management team.