Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Soul Reaver

Yuman Rights Act

Recommended Posts

Anyone with a mortgage should just stop paying it now.

Actually you are right! Why stop the precendent at the renters. Of course anyone with a house has equal humans rights to property LOL

Modern day man seems to know no bounds to his stupidity

Edited by Soul Reaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a strange country

"She was entitled to around £15,000 a year in housing benefit"

So about 23k per year pre tax income just for rent?

"has agreed to clear her arrears of £3,536.39 at £5 per week, or sooner if she can."

I assume that interest is not charged on this sum or it might be a little longer than 13 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the judgement relating to Ms Powell, I've not read through it all and offer no comment yet;

The facts

(a) Ms Powell

# As already noted, the local housing authority was satisfied that Ms Powell was homeless, eligible for assistance and had a priority need, and was not satisfied that she had become homeless intentionally. She was given a licence by the London Borough of Hounslow ("Hounslow") to occupy a two bedroom ground floor flat at 15 Pine Trees Close, Cranford from 2 April 2007. She and her two sons Zaid, born on 3 April 2005, and Nour, born on 14 April 2006, were noted on the agreement as the occupiers. A claim for housing benefit was received by Hounslow on 4 April 2007 in which Ms Powell indicated that she had a partner named Mr Ahmad Sami who normally resided with her. By letter dated 11 May 2007 Hounslow wrote to Ms Powell stating that there were arrears of rent and warning her that this could lead to termination of her licence to occupy the property. But on 14 May a credit of housing benefit was received which reduced the arrears to zero. There was a further period when the payments fell into arrears, but they were fully cleared by a payment of housing benefit on 3 December 2007.

# On 5 February 2008 Hounslow's housing benefit section wrote to Ms Powell asking her to provide it with information in connection with her claim. On 7 March 2008 it wrote to her stating that the information which it had asked for had not been provided. As a result the housing benefit claim was terminated from 23 December 2007. On 10 March 2008 Hounslow's income recovery officer wrote to Ms Powell informing her that there were arrears of licence payments and asking her to attend for an interview on 17 March 2008. Ms Powell did not attend as she had an interview at about the same time and on the same day with the Department of Work and Pensions. On 17 March 2008 Hounslow sent a letter to Ms Powell with a notice to quit. On 20 March 2008 she attended its offices and discussed the arrears with one of its officers. On the same day a letter was sent to her setting out the possible effect on Hounslow's homelessness duty towards her were she to be evicted due to rent arrears.

# On 28 April 2008 Hounslow's housing benefit section sent Ms Powell a housing benefit form. It was received on 12 May 2008 and payment of housing benefit was resumed on 26 May 2008. But there were substantial arrears of rent, represented by some 11 weeks' rent, which were not covered by the initial credit of housing benefit and which remained unpaid. On or about 19 September 2008 Hounslow issued a claim for possession of the premises, relying on the notice to quit dated 17 March 2008. It was explained that there were arrears as at 30 June 2008 of £3,536.39. The matter came before Deputy District Judge Shelton on 14 May 2009, who heard evidence from witnesses, including Ms Powell. He found that the measures that had been taken by Hounslow were reasonable and proportionate (in the Doherty sense), and granted possession of the premises to Hounslow. Having heard submissions as to her personal circumstances, he required Ms Powell to give possession of the property on or before a date 14 days after the date when the order was made.

# Ms Powell was granted permission to appeal against the judge's order by Mummery LJ on 2 July 2009, with a stay of execution on condition that Ms Powell paid off the arrears at £5 per week. Her appeal was heard as one of five appeals by the Court of Appeal in March 2010. It held that the decision in Ms Powell's case was lawful, as the circumstances were not highly exceptional in the context of the homelessness legislation: [2010] EWCA Civ 336, para 76. Her appeal was dismissed and the judge's order was stayed pending the filing of a notice of appeal to this Court.

# Ms Powell's current position is that she is 23 years old and that her household consists of herself, her partner Mr Ahmad Sami and their four children, Zaid who is now 5, Nour who is now 4, Taysier who was born on 13 July 2007 and is now 3, and Laila who was born in July 2009 and is now 1. The family is in receipt of various benefits including housing benefit which covers all of the rental liability. In December 2009 the family was moved from 15 Pine Tree Close so that disrepair within the premises could be dealt with. Work was completed in April 2010, and the family returned to the premises and has remained in occupation ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a strange country

"She was entitled to around £15,000 a year in housing benefit"

So about 23k per year pre tax income just for rent?

"has agreed to clear her arrears of £3,536.39 at £5 per week, or sooner if she can."

I assume that interest is not charged on this sum or it might be a little longer than 13 years.

if these benefits are not regulated soon we will get every 2nd woman to be a breeding machine ....

[typo fixed]

Edited by Damik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Last night Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘It seems to me that the courts always find in favour of the human rights of people who are doing something wrong. We have got to change that balance, it is getting completely out of hand.

‘What about the human rights of the landlord to get their rent, what about the human rights of the taxpayer?’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360046/European-human-rights-Rent-arrests-tenant-evicted-rules-judge.html#ixzz1Es3hweKf"

The thing is, MR TORY MP. collecting money is not a HUMAN RIGHT.

however, having a right to shelter and food IS a Human right...as is the right to NOT be shot at by its Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if these benefits are not regulated soon we will get every 2nd woman to be a breading machine ....

no lha =15k because of having the 4 kids if she was in private accomodation (I assume)

council rent = less

No point saying she was entitled to every penny of the 5k of rent she was actually charged. (It's about 80 quid a week for a council house round here, LHA is double that)

Edited by SarahBell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the judgement relating to Ms Powell, I've not read through it all and offer no comment yet;

The facts

(a) Ms Powell

# As already noted, the local housing authority was satisfied that Ms Powell was homeless, eligible for assistance and had a priority need, and was not satisfied that she had become homeless intentionally. She was given a licence by the London Borough of Hounslow ("Hounslow") to occupy a two bedroom ground floor flat at 15 Pine Trees Close, Cranford from 2 April 2007. She and her two sons Zaid, born on 3 April 2005, and Nour, born on 14 April 2006, were noted on the agreement as the occupiers. A claim for housing benefit was received by Hounslow on 4 April 2007 in which Ms Powell indicated that she had a partner named Mr Ahmad Sami who normally resided with her. By letter dated 11 May 2007 Hounslow wrote to Ms Powell stating that there were arrears of rent and warning her that this could lead to termination of her licence to occupy the property. But on 14 May a credit of housing benefit was received which reduced the arrears to zero. There was a further period when the payments fell into arrears, but they were fully cleared by a payment of housing benefit on 3 December 2007.

# On 5 February 2008 Hounslow's housing benefit section wrote to Ms Powell asking her to provide it with information in connection with her claim. On 7 March 2008 it wrote to her stating that the information which it had asked for had not been provided. As a result the housing benefit claim was terminated from 23 December 2007. On 10 March 2008 Hounslow's income recovery officer wrote to Ms Powell informing her that there were arrears of licence payments and asking her to attend for an interview on 17 March 2008. Ms Powell did not attend as she had an interview at about the same time and on the same day with the Department of Work and Pensions. On 17 March 2008 Hounslow sent a letter to Ms Powell with a notice to quit. On 20 March 2008 she attended its offices and discussed the arrears with one of its officers. On the same day a letter was sent to her setting out the possible effect on Hounslow's homelessness duty towards her were she to be evicted due to rent arrears.

# On 28 April 2008 Hounslow's housing benefit section sent Ms Powell a housing benefit form. It was received on 12 May 2008 and payment of housing benefit was resumed on 26 May 2008. But there were substantial arrears of rent, represented by some 11 weeks' rent, which were not covered by the initial credit of housing benefit and which remained unpaid. On or about 19 September 2008 Hounslow issued a claim for possession of the premises, relying on the notice to quit dated 17 March 2008. It was explained that there were arrears as at 30 June 2008 of £3,536.39. The matter came before Deputy District Judge Shelton on 14 May 2009, who heard evidence from witnesses, including Ms Powell. He found that the measures that had been taken by Hounslow were reasonable and proportionate (in the Doherty sense), and granted possession of the premises to Hounslow. Having heard submissions as to her personal circumstances, he required Ms Powell to give possession of the property on or before a date 14 days after the date when the order was made.

# Ms Powell was granted permission to appeal against the judge's order by Mummery LJ on 2 July 2009, with a stay of execution on condition that Ms Powell paid off the arrears at £5 per week. Her appeal was heard as one of five appeals by the Court of Appeal in March 2010. It held that the decision in Ms Powell's case was lawful, as the circumstances were not highly exceptional in the context of the homelessness legislation: [2010] EWCA Civ 336, para 76. Her appeal was dismissed and the judge's order was stayed pending the filing of a notice of appeal to this Court.

# Ms Powell's current position is that she is 23 years old and that her household consists of herself, her partner Mr Ahmad Sami and their four children, Zaid who is now 5, Nour who is now 4, Taysier who was born on 13 July 2007 and is now 3, and Laila who was born in July 2009 and is now 1. The family is in receipt of various benefits including housing benefit which covers all of the rental liability. In December 2009 the family was moved from 15 Pine Tree Close so that disrepair within the premises could be dealt with. Work was completed in April 2010, and the family returned to the premises and has remained in occupation ever since.

why a 2 bed mobile house is not good enough for these people? Surely unemployed father can do some repairs in the council house himself ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no lha =15k for the 4 kids

council rent = less

No point saying she was entitled to every penny of the 5k of rent she was actually charged. (It's about 80 quid a week for a council house round here, LHA is double that)

I like the idea that the council houses are sold and people are put instead to the private renting .... how clever it is .... it seems to me that Labour thought that government can just borrow unlimited amount of money ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the rest;

The disposal of these appeals

(a) Ms Powell

# Mr Underwood informed the Court that Hounslow had decided, in the light of the decision in Pinnock, to offer Ms Powell suitable alternative accommodation. As before, this accommodation was to be provided on a non-secure basis. Her rent arrears would be carried forward to the new tenancy on the basis that she continued to pay off the arrears at £5 per week, subject to any changes in her circumstances which would enable her to pay more. Mr Luba said that he was grateful for this offer, and he submitted that in any event the order that had been made against his client should not stand. Evidence had been heard by the district judge in her case. But this was not a full proportionality hearing of the kind contemplated by Pinnock, and her personal circumstances had not been examined. He invited the court to allow Ms Powell's appeal. In view of the offer that had been made, Mr Underwood did not oppose this invitation in his oral argument. But in his written case, in which he invited the court to dismiss the appeal, he pointed out that the judge observed that the action taken by Hounslow was proportionate.

# Had it not been for the offer of suitable alternative accommodation, there might have been grounds for remitting Ms Powell's case to the county court for consideration of article 8 proportionality. Giving effect to the order for possession would have the inevitable consequence of making Ms Powell homeless again so that the local authority's duties to her will continue, unless she were to be found to be intentionally homeless or not to have a priority need. Had there been a live issue to be examined, it would have been preferable for her to be given an opportunity for the proportionality of the order to be considered in the light of her personal circumstances. As it is, it is not necessary to reach a view on this point. An offer of suitable alternative accommodation having been made, no good purpose would be served by maintaining the order for possession or the notice to quit which preceded it. I would allow this appeal for this reason and set the order and the notice to quit aside.

So, what the Court seems to be saying here is evicting her is not proportunate to the aims the council wants to achieve - which, presumably, is the repayment of the rent arrears. The council has offered alternative accomodation and an agreement is in place to pay down the arrears. The principle of proportionality is that something is not proportunate if you can achieve the desired result by less severe means. Clearly then, evicting her is disporportunate because it isn't going to make any difference as to whether council gets it's arrears paid back or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a linky for you

If this catches on (it will) The BTL brigade with have something more to worry about ;)

"She was entitled to around £15,000 a year in housing benefit which could have covered the payments, but had not applied for it properly."

She rents from the same council that owes her the housing benefit, and arrears are only £3,500, so actually the council owes her £11,500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"She was entitled to around £15,000 a year in housing benefit which could have covered the payments, but had not applied for it properly."

She rents from the same council that owes her the housing benefit, and arrears are only £3,500, so actually the council owes her £11,500.

+1

The insane thing is that this went to court wasting taxpayer's money. The council is wasting money on what is an administrative error. If she is being deliberately obtuse about the situation ( not filling housing benefit forms in and such ), it should have been escalated within the council and they should have done that work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"She was entitled to around £15,000 a year in housing benefit which could have covered the payments, but had not applied for it properly."

She rents from the same council that owes her the housing benefit, and arrears are only £3,500, so actually the council owes her £11,500.

I thought she didn't claim it, so they don't owe it to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought she didn't claim it, so they don't owe it to her.

She did, it's in the part of the judgement I posted. She claimed it and it was paid and reduced some arrears she had to zero. They then wanted some additional info they she didn't provide, the claim was cancelled and subsequently reinstated some months later. The gap represents the arrears of £3.5K. She then agreed to pay it off via an arangement with the council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a crazy system we have then. Two people not working (for 4 years) with 4 children, living in Hounslow in possibly something like this

some flat on rightmove

Have been given somewhere in the region of £60,000 in housing benefit (probably more in other benefits too) which has been recycled into the council through collection of rent and then probably the same amount has been paid again to chase a shortfall of £3,500 in inter department transfers.

There must be a better way to look after the unemployed that does not cost so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a crazy system we have then. Two people not working (for 4 years) with 4 children, living in Hounslow in possibly something like this

some flat on rightmove

Have been given somewhere in the region of £60,000 in housing benefit (probably more in other benefits too) which has been recycled into the council through collection of rent and then probably the same amount has been paid again to chase a shortfall of £3,500 in inter department transfers.

There must be a better way to look after the unemployed that does not cost so much.

Probably, but then it wouldn't add to the GDP figures if there wasn't such a merry-go-round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

The insane thing is that this went to court wasting taxpayer's money. The council is wasting money on what is an administrative error. If she is being deliberately obtuse about the situation ( not filling housing benefit forms in and such ), it should have been escalated within the council and they should have done that work.

This poor woman has been put through this upsetting procedure because she didn't fill in some complex application form correctly, not that she wasn't enttitled.

The council's lawyers should be sacked through wasting council tax on this. Hopeully the woman could have a case for harassment. This ruling could cost them (and us) millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.