Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Human Rights May Block Evictions( Supreme Court Ruling)


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 bill65

bill65

    HPC Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 05:08 PM

Landlords in the private sector face prospect of not be able to evict private tenants. It seems the courts being a public body have to apply the HRA 1998.
http://content.yudu....esources/22.htm
When the government fear the people you have liberty when the people fear the government you have tyranny!
Edit/Delete Message

#2 Wurzel Of Highbridge

Wurzel Of Highbridge

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,777 posts
  • Location:Highbridge, Somerset
  • About Me:What I find I keep.

Posted 03 May 2012 - 06:21 PM

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!
  • I don't believe that there can be sustainable asset inflation when there is underlying wage deflation.
  • No matter what you choose to do in life, choose to do what you are best at and be the best you can be.
  • Everyone is a vested interest and everything is rigged.
  • Sometimes bubble dynamics just end, people stop believing and what was once a virtuous cycle suddenly morphs into vicious one.
  • The real value goes beyond the money.

I have come to realize that there is widespread belief in a 2015 global recovery.At this point in June 2013 is clear that there will be no recovery in 2015, central bankers have run out of tools to patch over the structural problems and the can can no longer be kicked.As we approach 2015 it will be clear that the emperor has no clothes and there will be an economic crash that makes 2009 look trivial.Note: I was wrong on 2nd May 2012 12:00 - London Top called prediction of London will fall by >10% in 12 months.


#3 ChumpusRex

ChumpusRex

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,236 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:12 PM

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, 03 May 2012 - 07:16 PM.

Of course there have been winter gales and storms and fog and the like. But in all my experience I have never been in any accident, or any sort worth speaking about. I have seen but one vessel in distress in all my years at sea. I never saw a wreck and never have been wrecked nor was I ever in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort - Capt. Edward J Smith, Captain RMS Titanic

#4 zebbedee

zebbedee

    HPC Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,604 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:22 PM

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, 03 May 2012 - 07:22 PM.

As I wandered in the darkness a voice came unto me, it said "smile, be happy, things could get worse". So I smiled and was happy and behold, things did get worse.

"Credit is indeed vital to an economy, but it does not constitute an economy within itself. ... When businesses borrow to fund capital investments, the extra cash flows that result are used to repay the loans. When individuals borrow to spend, loans can only be repaid out of reduced future consumption."-Peter Schiff, Jan 19 2009; <a href="http://www.321gold.c...iff011909.html" My link

"The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."-Andrew Jackson on the Second Bank of the United States

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."-Margaret Thatcher

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad." - James Madison

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
John Kenneth Galbraith

#5 markyh

markyh

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:47 PM

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

#6 AThirdWay

AThirdWay

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,729 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 09:34 PM

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!

#7 jonb

jonb

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,044 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 09:49 PM

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


6 months is the minimum permitted by law.

#8 cartimandua51

cartimandua51

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,508 posts
  • Location:Wiltshire

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:01 AM

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.
Posted Image

#9 tim123

tim123

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:hants

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:34 AM

6 months is the minimum permitted by law.



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

tim

#10 tim123

tim123

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:hants

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:39 AM

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

#11 cartimandua51

cartimandua51

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,508 posts
  • Location:Wiltshire

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:59 PM

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?
Posted Image

#12 okaycuckoo

okaycuckoo

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,535 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:01 PM

Nothing to see here ...

http://nearlylegal.c...hanges-does-it/

Legal opinions differ, but it looks like Art 8 defences will rarely be successful.

As for Art 8 applying to the private sector, only way I can see that happening is if the rent is paid through housing benefit. Not a runner, in my opinion.

#13 tim123

tim123

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:hants

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:28 PM

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

#14 bill65

bill65

    HPC Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:25 AM

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.newlawjou...ssession-take-2

Edited by bill65, 06 May 2012 - 12:31 PM.

When the government fear the people you have liberty when the people fear the government you have tyranny!
Edit/Delete Message

#15 colinsbrother

colinsbrother

    HPC Newbie

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:33 PM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users