LANDLORDS who slapped an eviction order on a Liphook family on the grounds of serious antisocial behaviour, have expressed disappointment over last week's verdict which overturned it. Moat Housing Group said the ruling from the Court of Appeal, which allows the family to stay in their home in Midhurst Road, is "contradictory" because there was an acceptance from the judge that serious antisocial behaviour had occurred. "Understandably, our witnesses and people who say they were forced out of their homes will be upset because the family has not been evicted," said regional director of Moat Housing, Gary Clark. "However an injunction with a power of arrest is in place for the next 18 months, and there is the possibility to return to court to seek possession of their home if they cause significant problems again. "We hope that this injunction will be enough to stop the bad behaviour, and trust that the family will take this opportunity to change their behaviour." Moat instigated legal action against Suzanne Hartless, her four children aged between six and 14 and the father of her children, Carl Harris, last October, following reports of incidents of serious antisocial behaviour from other residents living in the vicinity. Reported incidents included damage to property, assaults upon other occupants, threats of violence and intimidation. In December, Moat took an injunction and possession action against Ms Hartless, and was awarded an outright possession order against the family with a four-year ASBO (antisocial behaviour order) being granted against the adults in the family. Another family living in social housing on the estate was also served with an order, but surrendered its tenancy and agreed not to enter an area surrounding the estate for one year. But following an appeal by Ms Hartless and Mr Harris, the court of appeal ruled against the decision and replaced the ASBO with the 18- month injunction with power of arrest and a suspended possession order. Judge Thompson QC said the original order had been "intrusive" and "draconian" and that there had been inadequate warning given prior to the action being taken. But he accepted that the Moat was justified in seeking the injunction without notice orders because of the serious threat posed to Moat Housing's witnesses. "I can not understand why the Court of Appeal has focused on the technicalities of this case, when it is clear that the family are guilty of awful behaviour," said Mr Clark. "They have overturned two judges from a previous court hearing, one of whom had heard live evidence over three days. "The witnesses' fear of further intimidation and reprisals, in my opinion were not sufficiently considered." Following last week's verdict, Ms Hartless was warned to keep her children under control and to abide by the terms of her lease and urged to make "a fresh start". Mr Clark added that Moat Housing was pleased that peace had been restored to this part of Liphook. "We are delighted that residents are once again allowing their children to play without fear of bullying and assault. "This case does offer good practice directions for antisocial behaviour cases, and in particular for future injunction action, and we hope that the social housing sector will not be deterred from challenging extreme behaviour in the future. "The court of appeal has confirmed that without notice injunctions with exclusion areas can be used if they are a proportionate response." Ms Hartless did not wish to comment on the case.