The Tenancy Review Hearing was unlawful because the Judge at the County Court had not concluded the Breach Hearing which had been called to consider the same allegations. It is fortunate that I was represented by a solicitor who spotted the error. The Hearing was withdrawn. It appears that not one of the independent people sitting on the Panel would have known that the Hearing was unlawful.
My landlord's Anti Social Behaviour Officer had attempted to restrict my support at the Hearing. He was illegally insisting that I could have only one representative present at the Hearing. According to XXXXX XXXXX I would only be allowed support from either a legal representative, or someone to support my disability, but not both. This is highly irregular and pretty much flagrant attempt to control what is supposed to be a "fair" Hearing. 10 people who represented the landlord in one way or another were present. If the ASB Case Officer had managed to bully me into making a selection, it would undeniably be classed as out right discrimination. As it is, I have evidence of his deceit, which is indicative of the predilection for attempting unlawful actions.
Additionally, the ASB Case Officer was acting unprofessionally by attempting to employ “evidence” which had been rejected by both the landlord’s barrister, the defendant's barrister and the Judge prior to the Breach Hearing.