bill65

Human Rights May Block Evictions( Supreme Court Ruling)

15 posts in this topic

Looks promising. Security of tenure is carp in this country!

I have read about landlords serving a section 21 on te day the tenant moves in FFS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks promising. Security of tenure is carp in this country!

I have read about landlords serving a section 21 on te day the tenant moves in FFS!

This is not promising at all. This is a potentially a nightmare.

The claim here is that it is a breach of human rights to evict someone for breaching a tenancy agreement or failing to pay rent. The claim being made is that a tenant has a right to privacy in their home, and that eviction would breach that privacy, and therefore eviction would be a disproportionate action for the LL to take in the event that the tenant fails to pay their rent.

The point trying to be made here is that the right to a home trumps contract law, and that once a tenancy agreement is made, it will stand, regardless of whether the tenant breaches the requirements of teh agreement.

If this gets passed, then expect long tenancies to disappear, and LLs to start demanding payment up-front for the whole term.

Edited by ChumpusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not promising at all. This is a potentially a nightmare.

The claim here is that it is a breach of human rights to evict someone for breaching a tenancy agreement or failing to pay rent. The claim being made is that a tenant has a right to privacy in their home, and that eviction would breach that privacy, and therefore eviction would be a disproportionate action for the LL to take in the event that the tenant fails to pay their rent.

The point trying to be made here is that the right to a home trumps contract law, and that once a tenancy agreement is made, it will stand, regardless of whether the tenant breaches the requirements of teh agreement.

If this gets passed, then expect long tenancies to disappear, and LLs to start demanding payment up-front for the whole term.

And expect market demand to say no

Edited by zebbedee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not promising at all. This is a potentially a nightmare.

The claim here is that it is a breach of human rights to evict someone for breaching a tenancy agreement or failing to pay rent. The claim being made is that a tenant has a right to privacy in their home, and that eviction would breach that privacy, and therefore eviction would be a disproportionate action for the LL to take in the event that the tenant fails to pay their rent.

The point trying to be made here is that the right to a home trumps contract law, and that once a tenancy agreement is made, it will stand, regardless of whether the tenant breaches the requirements of teh agreement.

If this gets passed, then expect long tenancies to disappear, and LLs to start demanding payment up-front for the whole term.

Could be great news, would open up a whole new selection of properties to private tennants entitled to HB but excluded from good propeties in nice areas because the LL wont accept HB tennats.

Just take on 6 month AST as a "private" tennant, then 1 month in apply for HB, inform Landlord, and use this ruling to ensure you don't get evicted from said nice property because you now claim HB to pay part of the rent.

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be great news, would open up a whole new selection of properties to private tennants entitled to HB but excluded from good propeties in nice areas because the LL wont accept HB tennats.

Just take on 6 month AST as a "private" tennant, then 1 month in apply for HB, inform Landlord, and use this ruling to ensure you don't get evicted from said nice property because you now claim HB to pay part of the rent.

M

I think the point is that 6 month AST's would disappear overnight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that 6 month AST's would disappear overnight!

6 months is the minimum permitted by law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks promising. Security of tenure is carp in this country!

I have read about landlords serving a section 21 on te day the tenant moves in FFS!

Be careful what you pray for. I remember all too clearly what private rentals were like before the '88 Act.

Expect LLs to refuse to take families if at all possible, as they are more likely to get support from the courts on any proportionality basis. More "technically" resident LLs; shared facilities etc. As ever, some will benefit (NOT necessarily Joe average worker; more likely the feckless chav contingent) others will lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 months is the minimum permitted by law.

No it's not (that rule was abolished at least 10 years ago)

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful what you pray for. I remember all too clearly what private rentals were like before the '88 Act.

Expect LLs to refuse to take families if at all possible, as they are more likely to get support from the courts on any proportionality basis. More "technically" resident LLs; shared facilities etc. As ever, some will benefit (NOT necessarily Joe average worker; more likely the feckless chav contingent) others will lose.

If the ruling says that evicting someone for non payment of rent is "disproportionate", then surely the solution is for a "no fault" eviction, which means that fixed terms should disappear an all contracts will be periodic.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ruling says that evicting someone for non payment of rent is "disproportionate", then surely the solution is for a "no fault" eviction, which means that fixed terms should disappear an all contracts will be periodic.

tim

In conjunction with

6 months is the minimum permitted by law.

No it's not (that rule was abolished at least 10 years ago)

I assume you are thinking that a LL would just issue a one-month (or whatever) AST which would then become periodic in the way that 6-month ones do? Perhaps you can enlighten me - I knew that some years back the 6-month minimum was abolished, but I was told in court by the judge ( my partner & I were suing a defaulting and absconded tenant fror the balance of the rent) that the new rules gave you "something and nothing" as you still couldn't terminate it in the first 6 months if the tenant didn't want to. (Excluding holday lets etc of course).

Does this still apply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In conjunction with

6 months is the minimum permitted by law.

No it's not (that rule was abolished at least 10 years ago)

I assume you are thinking that a LL would just issue a one-month (or whatever) AST which would then become periodic in the way that 6-month ones do? Perhaps you can enlighten me - I knew that some years back the 6-month minimum was abolished, but I was told in court by the judge ( my partner & I were suing a defaulting and absconded tenant fror the balance of the rent) that the new rules gave you "something and nothing" as you still couldn't terminate it in the first 6 months if the tenant didn't want to. (Excluding holday lets etc of course).

Does this still apply?

No, he issues a periodic right from the start.

But wrt to the 6 months minimum, I suppose that you are right in the contect of this discussion as the LL can't start eviction proceedings in the first 6 months.

But the statement "ASTs must be for a minimum of 6 months" is false, if the tenant only wants 3 months he can have this.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have been looking for:

In principle an Art 8 defence could be raised against a claim brought by a private landlord. In both Zehentner v Austria (20082/02) and Belchikova v Russia (2408/06) the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that—even where the claimant was a private person—Art 8 required that the court assess the proportionality of an eviction.

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/valuable-possession-take-2

Edited by bill65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, if we can't get out of the EU, we, the renter class, should try and use the European Court of Human Rights and all the various laws that go with it to find a way of making the government do something about the private rented sector. It's obvious that the government (and all the political parties) will not make the necessary changes such as rent controls etc, so perhaps they need to have their hand forced by the ECHR? We might as well try and use it to our benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.