Hoarding can present a number of risks to tenants and neighbouring residents, including: pests, mould, and chief amongst them fire safety risks. Many landlords will be familiar with the risks associated with hoarding and may have seen clutter scale and fire safety reports come across their desk. Equally, in the last few years Hoarding Disorder itself has become a distinctly recognised mental health condition by the NHS, whereas it used to be considered as a type of OCD.
But, is hoarding properly ASB?
As will be familiar to most landlords, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the “ASB Act”) defines anti-social behaviour broadly and includes at section 2(1):
“(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
(b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
(c) conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
At first blush, it seems that based on this definition hoarding could most certainly amount to a nuisance if the hoarding resulted in, for example, pests or if the hoarding expanded to communal spaces.
However, hoarding in and of itself doesn’t seem to meet that definition unless it goes the step further into causing a nuisance.
Landlords can seek injunctive relief in respect of hoarding issues in one of two ways:
- ASB Injunction;
- Contractual Injunction.
Unfortunately, there are difficulties in either direction and neither order is arguably fit for purpose. One judge who shall not be named notably suggested that the Court of Protection had produced a standard order in relation to hoarding which was a far more suitable template. While it might well be true that the Court of Protection is better equipped to make an order to address hoarding, fortunately the recent case of Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership [2025] EWHC 933 (KB) tells us that in the context of hoarding in a possession claim the Landlord was not required to make an application to the Court of Protection, or engage hoarding specialists, in order to proportionately seek possession. That being said, Ground 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (deteriorating condition of the property) was the basis of the possession order in that case, and Ground 13 is far more on the nose for hoarding as compared to the wording in the ASB Act.
Contractual injunctions (colloquially referred to as access injunctions) which seek to enforce the terms of a tenancy agreement can be appropriate where there are clear clauses obliging a tenant to occupy their property in a tenant-like manner, to keep the property in good and tidy condition, and not to leave their personal items in communal spaces.
More difficult is explaining to the Court how that can be enforced in an order, and for example asking vulnerable tenants to clear a property and/or reduce the items at the property to below a certain number on the clutter scale, which is difficult to understand at the best of times.
Conversely, while hoarding can clearly become a nuisance, there are difficulties in seeking to prohibit behaviour which directly stems from a recognised mental health condition. There is certainly more to say on this topic, but robust proportionality assessments will be important if an injunction is going to be pursued.
Taken altogether, yes, hoarding can be ASB if there is a nuisance arising from the hoarding. But landlords would do well to carefully consider all approaches and take a person-centered approach which considers the nuances of this complicated mental health condition.