A LIPHOOK family accused of being threatening and abusive to neighbours has been temporarily evicted from its home – but a second family has been allowed to stay.

Both families, who are alleged to have made their neighbours' lives a misery, now face a trial later this month.

The two families, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared at Aldershot and Farnham County Court on Thursday last week facing permanent eviction by their landlords, Moat Housing Association.

The association had tried to secure evictions against both families, but although the district judge agreed to one of the eviction orders he refused to evict the second family because of insufficient evidence

The evictions are being made under new antisocial behaviour legislation which allows social landlords to get a court order to evict any adult in their properties who is causing a nuisance.

Last Thursday was a preliminary hearing to decide when the case for the two families will be heard and whether they should be able to stay in their houses until then.

The court heard that both families had injunctions of eviction served against them on Friday, October 29 at 8-45 pm, however police allowed them to stay until the following morning in the interests of the children.

During this time one of the families took legal advice and contacted a High Court judge who put a stay on their order which allowed them to remain in their house.

However the second family had to leave and are banned from entering Liphook.

It is alleged that the adults had carried out assaults, threats and harrassment while their children caused constant nuisance by noisy bad behaviour and foul language.

In court the solicitor of the evicted family, Christopher Gair, described the order as "draconian to the extreme".

Mr Gair said that the family he was representing should be allowed to return to the area as they were unable to go to their doctor, friends or supermarket.

"They were unable to attend the Liphook carnival, which they attend every year," Mr Gair told the court.

Philip Glenn, counsel for Moat, believed that the defence would raise the question of the family's human rights, but implored the court to consider the rights of the affected neighbours.

"You may have to weigh the interests of the defendants against those clearly affected by their behaviour," he said.

"My submission is that this is a serious case. There have been reports of threats, abuse and assaults. You should provide proper protection to those who deserve it."

District Judge James agreed with the defence that the order was tough but refused to overturn it. "I agree that such an order is draconian, but it is intended to be such," he said.

Cheryl Jones, representing the family who were able to stay in their home, questioned the housing association over the time the order was first served.

"A family with young children are served with an order at 9 o'clock at night. Why was it so late?" she said.

"There has been no consideration to the effect on four young children who are not party to this injunction."

"My clients have remained in the property because they were able to find legal help at 9 o'clock at night."

The association's solicitor, Philip Glenn, defended its actions and explained that part of the delay was due to the order not being produced until later that afternoon.

In summing up, the district judge said that the family who had stayed at their home had received 14 character statements. "It is quite an achievement to get that many people to write that many letters given the length of time."

He went on to say that he found it difficult to distinguish what the specific allegations were against specific people from Moat's evidence.

"I am not satisfied that the evidence before me warrants an exclusion order."

However he believed the case against the other family was much stronger, which is denied by them. "They have not been able to offer any supporting evidence at this time," said Mr James.

"However, I have to say that I am also taken aback by the fact that there is only one letter from the housing association, which they could be criticised for. I have to balance that with the rights of the residents on the estate."

He told the second family that in their case, the exclusion order will remain in place, and will apply until the next hearing.

A trial date for the case against both families has been set for November 29 at Southampton County Court. However, this was something overwhich the defending solicitors had concerns.

They argued that there should be a separate hearing for each of the families and Mr Gair also said that this was too short a period of time in which to prepare his case.

Despite their concerns the judge said that it was important that the case was dealt with speedily.

"I consider the most important matter we can deal with is getting this matter resolved as quickly as possible," Mr James said, "and I believe this gives you sufficient time."