Woman On Benefits Owing £3,500 Rent Can't Be Evicted: New European Human Rights Ruling Could Lead To Thousands Of Tenants Refusing To Pay

[interestrateripoff]

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

Evicting a woman from her council home for failing to pay rent would breach her human rights, judges ruled yesterday.

Town Hall chiefs wanted to evict Rebecca Powell, who receives thousands of pounds in benefits, after she ran up more than £3,500 in arrears on the accommodation she was given because she was homeless.

But the Supreme Court said that – under the controversial European Convention on Human Rights – this would be a breach of the right to ‘respect for a person’s home’.

Council leaders and the Government had fought the case and fear it may now be harder to evict thousands of council tenants who fall into arrears.

Legal experts said there was an increasing ‘trend’ for tenants – including ‘neighbours from hell’ – to use human rights law to thwart eviction.

Passing yesterday’s judgment, Lord Hope made it clear the ruling had its origins in Strasbourg. He said the ‘time had come to accept and apply the jurisprudence of the European court’.

........

Miss Powell, now 23, was given a home in Cranford, West London, by Hounslow Council in April 2007. By June the following year Miss Powell, who lives with her partner and four children, owed the council more than £3,500.

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.

Eviction proceedings began but were halted when Miss Powell appealed under the Human Rights Act. At one stage the council moved the family out in order to renovate the home at taxpayers’ expense, then moved them back in.

Hard to judge this as it's a Wail report but very interesting, clearly the jist is there is no point in paying your rent as you can't be evicted.

However clearly there could be huge implications for the BTL brigade, no rent and no income to pay the IO mortgage. The knock effect might be the banks who repossess won't be able to evict the tenants either. Imagine what they'll get for house on the open market if that's the case. £0?

[SomethingHasToGive]

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

Hard to judge this as it's a Wail report but very interesting, clearly the jist is there is no point in paying your rent as you can't be evicted.

However clearly there could be huge implications for the BTL brigade, no rent and no income to pay the IO mortgage. The knock effect might be the banks who repossess won't be able to evict the tenants either. Imagine what they'll get for house on the open market if that's the case. £0?

Already a thread for this here

[tim123]

NO:

It's a UK Supreme Court Human Rights rulling

tim

[interestrateripoff]

Already a thread for this here

Didn't realise that was going on about this.

[billybong]

Councils buy up the BTLs for pennies in the pound. It might even help to keep a lid on tax. I know - how likely is that.

[curious1]

But the Supreme Court said that – under the controversial European Convention on Human Rights – this would be a breach of the right to ‘respect for a person’s home’.

How about the human rights of the landlord to receive money for services/property rendered? Bizarre.. Maybe I should hold up a bank and then hand myself in knowing that I can get off on my human right to live off the booty for the rest of my life without having to raise a finger ever again!

[Si1]

How about the human rights of the landlord to receive money for services/property rendered? Bizarre.. Maybe I should hold up a bank and then hand myself in knowing that I can get off on my human right to live off the booty for the rest of my life without having to raise a finger ever again!

business risk

[miko]

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

However clearly there could be huge implications for the BTL brigade, no rent and no income to pay the IO mortgage. The knock effect might be the banks who repossess won't be able to evict the tenants either. Imagine what they'll get for house on the open market if that's the case. £0?

Something like this could have huge implications for everyone . Lets take the housing and btl issue out of the equation for a moment and look at the issue .

Someone has agreed a contract with another person or bussiness. That person has not kept to their agreement to pay for the service they have enjoyed and the injured party wants to end the contract . As this case is to do with housing they have had to go to court to legally end the contract . The judge in effect has torn up the contract that the two parties have agreed and given one party the right to a service without haveing to pay the money that they agreed to pay.

What if someone bought a car on HP refused to pay for it and was allowed to keep it , or people used the services of utillity companies and refused to pay their bills . There would be a totol breakdown in contract law. That will never happen as not everyone is going to be allowed to act in this way , but as always certain individuals will get away with things that others will not be allowed to get away with.

[Redcellar]

Something like this could have huge implications for everyone . Lets take the housing and btl issue out of the equation for a moment and look at the issue .

Someone has agreed a contract with another person or bussiness. That person has not kept to their agreement to pay for the service they have enjoyed and the injured party wants to end the contract . As this case is to do with housing they have had to go to court to legally end the contract . The judge in effect has torn up the contract that the two parties have agreed and given one party the right to a service without haveing to pay the money that they agreed to pay.

What if someone bought a car on HP refused to pay for it and was allowed to keep it , or people used the services of utillity companies and refused to pay their bills . There would be a totol breakdown in contract law. That will never happen as not everyone is going to be allowed to act in this way , but as always certain individuals will get away with things that others will not be allowed to get away with.

Isn't that the case with water already? Used to be that their had to be a supply of water to rented properties even if bills not paid?

[okaycuckoo]

The bones of the legal stuff is here:

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/02/hounslow-v-powell-newsflash/

This only applies to public authority landlords, not to private or BTL.

The court reckons successful defences on proportionality will be exceptional.

[okaycuckoo]

Isn't that the case with water already? Used to be that their had to be a supply of water to rented properties even if bills not paid?

Couple of years ago engineers for Scottish & Southern (?) refused to enter flats in Portsmouth to turn off supplies - sick of getting threatened with baseball bats.

[Democorruptcy]

Didn't realise that was going on about this.

He's only gone and done it again

Your typing speed definitely isn't what it was, try this:

http://www.learn2type.com/TypingTest

[yoman]

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

Hard to judge this as it's a Wail report but very interesting, clearly the jist is there is no point in paying your rent as you can't be evicted.

However clearly there could be huge implications for the BTL brigade, no rent and no income to pay the IO mortgage. The knock effect might be the banks who repossess won't be able to evict the tenants either. Imagine what they'll get for house on the open market if that's the case. £0?

From experence, the Bank always follow different rules, SO I think the bank will be fine.

[northwestsmith2]

What's shocking is they would have paid £15K in housing benefit alone if she had filled the forms in correctly.

That's means earning 19K just to cover the rent, insanity.

[miko]

Isn't that the case with water already? Used to be that their had to be a supply of water to rented properties even if bills not paid?

I have heard this , there was something about it the other night on here and have seen it on the news. At present most people do pay their water bills so that has not created a big problem but if the majority decided not to pay then the fall out would have a big effect.

One other point when there was something about it on the news they did say that even though they could not cut off the supply completly they could and do drastically reduce the water pressure to those that do not pay. They showed a man taking ages to fill up his kettle . I think most people myself included would rather pay than take 3 hours to fill our baths.

In the case of the women not paying the rent she was still entitled to full use of the service granted not just a tiny part of the house.

[Injin]

Something like this could have huge implications for everyone . Lets take the housing and btl issue out of the equation for a moment and look at the issue .

Someone has agreed a contract with another person or bussiness. That person has not kept to their agreement to pay for the service they have enjoyed and the injured party wants to end the contract . As this case is to do with housing they have had to go to court to legally end the contract . The judge in effect has torn up the contract that the two parties have agreed and given one party the right to a service without haveing to pay the money that they agreed to pay.

What service?

What if someone bought a car on HP refused to pay for it and was allowed to keep it , or people used the services of utillity companies and refused to pay their bills . There would be a totol breakdown in contract law. That will never happen as not everyone is going to be allowed to act in this way , but as always certain individuals will get away with things that others will not be allowed to get away with.

This is more like refusing to back up someone who is charging you for something you can already do anyway, and rightly so.

[6538]

My link

This is being done on another thread.

The paper has misrepresented the case to give the impression that Human Rights legislation prevents non-paying tenents from being kicked out. That is not true, the case is about proportionality.

The actual point in this case was that kicking her out is disproportunate to the aim the council is trying to achieve - that being, getting their rent arrears back. They have agreed a payment plan with her and have offered alternative accomodation in another one of their properties. That being the case, how can it be a proportunate response to evict her as it actually achieves nothing at all, She will still owe the money and be paying it off under the agreement but will be living in a different property owned by the same council.

[sleepless]

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 to HB.

The council's lawyers should be sacked through wasting council tax money on this. Hopeully the woman could have a case for harassment.

This ruling has the potential to cost council tax payers millions.

[thod]

Something like this could have huge implications for everyone . Lets take the housing and btl issue out of the equation for a moment and look at the issue .

Someone has agreed a contract with another person or bussiness. That person has not kept to their agreement to pay for the service they have enjoyed and the injured party wants to end the contract . As this case is to do with housing they have had to go to court to legally end the contract . The judge in effect has torn up the contract that the two parties have agreed and given one party the right to a service without haveing to pay the money that they agreed to pay.

What if someone bought a car on HP refused to pay for it and was allowed to keep it , or people used the services of utillity companies and refused to pay their bills . There would be a totol breakdown in contract law. That will never happen as not everyone is going to be allowed to act in this way , but as always certain individuals will get away with things that others will not be allowed to get away with.

There is the concept of the illegal contract. For example, if you sign up with a hit-man, the contract exists but since it is an illegal contract it cannot be enforced. If a contract is in breech of your human rights, that too would be an illegal contract. You cannot sign away your human rights. To do so would be to demonstrate an imbalance in the powers of the contracting parties. All contracts assume equal parties entering the contract freely and such an imbalance would negate it as a contract. Contracts are a sub-category of agreements and not all agreements are contracts.

We have the least tenant protection in Europe. Should someone have lived for 50 years in the same house, it is their home and that gives them an interest. The guy that bought the house a month ago may wish them gone to further his interests. Yet the interests of the tenant should not be subservient to that of the landlord. It is wrongful to assume that all interests are financial and other interests cannot exist.

[miko]

There is the concept of the illegal contract. For example, if you sign up with a hit-man, the contract exists but since it is an illegal contract it cannot be enforced. If a contract is in breech of your human rights, that too would be an illegal contract. You cannot sign away your human rights. To do so would be to demonstrate an imbalance in the powers of the contracting parties. All contracts assume equal parties entering the contract freely and such an imbalance would negate it as a contract. Contracts are a sub-category of agreements and not all agreements are contracts.

We have the least tenant protection in Europe. Should someone have lived for 50 years in the same house, it is their home and that gives them an interest. The guy that bought the house a month ago may wish them gone to further his interests. Yet the interests of the tenant should not be subservient to that of the landlord. It is wrongful to assume that all interests are financial and other interests cannot exist.

As i said take the house out of the situation .

Are you saying this contract was legal or illegal ?

Whether the contract is enforcable or not they had an agreement and one party broke it . The other party wanted address and did not get it. With the guy who lived in the house for 50 years was there something in the contract saying he had the right to something extra after living there for 50 years apart form being able to reside there if he paid the rent ?

No one said that all interests are financial and other interests cannot exist However in this instant the interests were one paid to live in the house provided by the other . One provided the house the other party did not pay . Simple as .

Edited February 24, 2011 by miko

[Injin]

As i said take the house out of the situation .

Are you saying this contract was legal or illegal ?

Whether the contract is enforcable or not they had an agreement and one party broke it . The other party wanted address and did not get it. With the guy who lived in the house for 50 years was there something in the contract saying he had the right to something extra after living there for 50 years apart form being able to reside there if he paid the rent ?

No one said that all interests are financial and other interests cannot exist However in this instant the interests were one paid to live in the house provided by the other . One provided the house the other party did not pay . Simple as .

Hows about 1 looked after the house, the other did sod all?

Or....1 provided the house, and overcharged by thousands of percent due to the inability of the landless to build their own stuff freely?

Or....hows about calling the whole contract off and only charging the tenant for fair wear and tear repairs?

[miko]

Hows about 1 looked after the house, the other did sod all?

Or....1 provided the house, and overcharged by thousands of percent due to the inability of the landless to build their own stuff freely?

Or....hows about calling the whole contract off and only charging the tenant for fair wear and tear repairs?

How about what was in the contract ?

Did it say that if one looked after the house then they were intitlled to own some of it ? If not which in this case it did not then don't go into contracts and expect to then change them .

Why not call the whole contract off and only charge for fair wear and tear ? because that was not the agreement to begin with quite simple really if you think about it. why not collect the rent and then ask for some more above what was agreed ? because that was not in the contract either was it .

By the way in this case the women was living there she was moved out into other accomodation while the council refurbished the house . So in this case yes one did look after the house and one did do sod all , but it was the women who did sod all.

[Injin]

How about what was in the contract ?

We were discussing what we do once the contract is broken.

Did it say that if one looked after the house then they were intitlled to own some of it ? If not which in this case it did not then don't go into contracts and expect to then change them .

Don't expect brzenly unfair contracts to be upheld, maybe?

Why not call the whole contract off and only charge for fair wear and tear ? because that was not the agreement to begin with quite simple really if you think about it. why not collect the rent and then ask for some more above what was agreed ? because that was not in the contract either was it .

if the agreement is being torn up, then we have to sort out fair and just recompense. For some reason you think this means payment in full as though the contract was live (and just.) No reason your PoV is right, is there?

By the way in this case the women was living there she was moved out into other accomodation while the council refurbished the house . So in this case yes one did look after the house and one did do sod all , but it was the women who did sod all.

You mean you accept the principle that when you make someone homeless you have to sort them out a new place to stay?

[thod]

You mean you accept the principle that when you make someone homeless you have to sort them out a new place to stay?

A landlord forces you to move house costing you thousands of pounds in removal expenses. You argue that the actions of the other party are directly responsible for these costs and that they would not have occurred except for these actions. You bring a common law case arguing that he knowingly and deliberately did harm to you and you seek recompense.

[Injin]

A landlord forces you to move house costing you thousands of pounds in removal expenses. You argue that the actions of the other party are directly responsible for these costs and that they would not have occurred except for these actions. You bring a common law case arguing that he knowingly and deliberately did harm to you and you seek recompense.

Hows about the court don't throw you out in the first place?