Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Up the spout

Uk Housing Crisis 'in Breach Of Human Rights'

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/28/uk-housing-crisis-in-breach-of-human-rights

The UK is in breach of its own United Nations human rights commitment to provide people with adequate homes because the housing crisis is so serious, a consortium of leading housing charities has warned. They cite soaring housing rental costs, unhealthy conditions in homes, and rising levels of homelessness and warn of “profound issues of lack of supply, increasing housing costs, lack of security of tenure and homes of such poor quality that they are unfit for habitation”.

Word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, the main thing is the property wealthy elderly have their state benefits protected

Political genius there Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UK is in breach of its own United Nations human rights commitment to provide people with adequate homes because the housing crisis is so serious, a consortium of leading housing charities has warned. They cite soaring housing rental costs, unhealthy conditions in homes, and rising levels of homelessness and warn of “profound issues of lack of supply, increasing housing costs, lack of security of tenure and homes of such poor quality that they are unfit for habitation”.

Word, indeed. I guess it's because the UK's over-valued property so much, actual quality has gone out the window. When property values are ramped up 3 to 4 times their value in 20 years, people pass the problems onto the buyer, who has little negotiating power, or actual cash to do up the property after purchase anyway. Get a new job in a new town? Become an accidental landlord, and rent out the slum that has had zero maintenance. Nobody has the cash to do DIY anymore (ask HomeBase, B & Q). So here we have quality going down, and prices having gone way past any kind of meaningful relationship to quality. And so it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying this for years. I did a post a few years ago about how the PRS is most likely in violation of ECHR article 8. But article 8 does not apply to private individuals/companies although a few test cases have seen judges apply article 8 to the PRS recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did have a visit from the UN looking at housing in 2013

http://www.una.org.uk/news/13/09/un-special-rapporteur-adequate-housing-concludes-uk-visit

I wonder if that resulted in (from the Guardian report)

"The report is intended to inform a UN audit of housing in England starting this autumn. It was largely funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 60s going off the reservation...over a 5th plan to vote UKIP...must...offer...more...bribes..

http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/yougov-voting-intentions-by-age-range.html

So UKIP won't protect state benefits for the elderly? The boomers/old are basically UKIPs core vote now.

If you're anti-EU then vote UKIP. If you are pro-HPC be assured that UKIP will be about as pro-HPC as the Tory party or a Daily Express reader. I heard one candidate talk about stopping all greenfield building, if that's not boomer NIMBYism I don't know what is.

Lets not forget UKIP's BTL LL housing spokesman has taken over £826,000 in HB off the tax payer, so if boomer/pensioner happens to have BTL or two they'll be fully protected as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if they can wave the Human Rights Act at the government to get them solve this problem, I am for the Human Rights Act.

Well if it is then this would help explain why politicians have been so keen to get rid of it (instead of our sometimes useless judiciary, I doubt any other signatory of the ECHR has judges as inept as ours).

A decent lawyer could probably build a case saying that not being able to afford to buy a house, moving from one rented property to another every six months and therefore not settling down and having children is violating the right to a family life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.holmes-hills.co.uk/articles/landlords-warned-to-keep-abreast-of-important-human-rights-decision/

Comment

Article 8 of the ECHR is a far-reaching piece of legislation that has been widely scrutinised for its broad application, from defending against the deportation of terrorists to attempting to secure prisoners’ right to vote in elections. It was only a matter of time before it reared its head in relation to private ASTs (Assured Shorthold Tenancies).

If the decision in the above case eventually settles in favour of the tenant, it is likely to lead to a similarly broad application of Article 8 to a wide range of new possession claim defences based on arguments of human right breaches. This may make it significantly more difficult (and costly) for landlords and managing agents to seek possession of rented properties. I will be keeping a particularly close eye on this appeal case as it proceeds though the courts since a decision in favour of the tenant will see the law governing the relationship between landlords and tenants fall further in favour of the tenant at the very real expense of landlords.

Edited by fru-gal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be emphasised enough that Labour have only "promised" to build 200,000 new homes a year by 2020 (emphasis on the words by 2020). For example (although it's extremely unlikely) they might build zero new homes in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 but they would still be keeping their promise. That leaves out the other possibility that they could easily renege on their promise.

That's not to say that they won't build the most new homes of all the parties (they might or they might not) but it's not correct to assume that they're promising to be building 5 x 200,000 = 1 million new homes during the 5 year parliament. It's most likely going to be significantly less - even based on what they've actually promised.

That's if the next parliament lasts the full 5 years.

They also haven't said how many they're going to demolish over that period.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be emphasised enough that Labour have only "promised" to build 200,000 new homes a year by 2020

The government don't build $hit! They simply sit on their paper shuffling asses quaffing subsidised food in the Westminster canteen.

They can order some house to be built using some borrowed/printed/magicked up money.

They can abolishing planning paving the way for organic and natural development.

They can removed the props allowing prices to fall.

They can tax BTL.

The is a lot they could do however judging on the last 30 years they don't intend to do anything other than pat lip service.

It will take the people to storm westminster and demand change before any change happens. Perhaps give it another 30 years when we have families sharing studio flats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government don't build $hit! They simply sit on their paper shuffling asses quaffing subsidised food in the Westminster canteen.

They can order some house to be built using some borrowed/printed/magicked up money.

They can abolishing planning paving the way for organic and natural development.

They can removed the props allowing prices to fall.

They can tax BTL.

The is a lot they could do however judging on the last 30 years they don't intend to do anything other than pat lip service.

It will take the people to storm westminster and demand change before any change happens. Perhaps give it another 30 years when we have families sharing studio flats.

Build in my post was shorthand for putting "policies" in place - .when they aren't quaffing subsidised food and filling in expenses claims and ordering up magic money etc. They aren't builders.

Edited by billybong

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.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   26 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.