We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
We're aware that some users are currently experiencing slow loading times and errors on the Forum. Our tech team is working to resolve the issue. Thanks for your patience.
S.H.T may not be compatible with the H.R.A.
deary65
Posts: 818 Forumite
S.H.T may not be compatible with the H.R.A.
There is an issue circulating in legal circles at the moment:
Under the HRA you have a right to a family life. This does not mean you have a right to a home but, it could be argued that you have the right to put down roots and rise a family. With A.S.H.T( with no security of tenure) the possibility of having to move every six months, on these grounds the issue could possibly be argued that this form of tenancy could be incompatible with the H.R.A.
It looks like this is going to court, so look out for the judgment.
There is an issue circulating in legal circles at the moment:
Under the HRA you have a right to a family life. This does not mean you have a right to a home but, it could be argued that you have the right to put down roots and rise a family. With A.S.H.T( with no security of tenure) the possibility of having to move every six months, on these grounds the issue could possibly be argued that this form of tenancy could be incompatible with the H.R.A.
It looks like this is going to court, so look out for the judgment.
Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.
0
Comments
-
Surely the HRA only applies to public bodies in their interaction with individuals, not interations between private individuals, e.g LL and tenant?
Do you have any links you can point us to about this?"You were only supposed to blow the bl**dy doors off!!"0 -
I am not a human rights lawyer, I deal mostly in constitutional and property law, I was phoned by a colleague, and in the course of conversation we discussed this issue. That it is the legislation per se that must conform to the human rights act. It is an interesting issue in relation to constitutional law.
I know at the moment that what constitutes a public body is being redefined. So it is a matter of wait and see how this develops, but it is an interesting issue non the less.
There is all so the issue that the courts must apply the human rights act when making judgments i.e possession proceedings.Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.0 -
maninthestreet wrote:Surely the HRA only applies to public bodies in their interaction with individuals, not interations between private individuals, e.g LL and tenant?
Do you have any links you can point us to about this?
Sounds like two mates putting the world to rights down the pub.
The links you requested are on the back of a fag packet!I am desperate for acceptance, please hit the 'thanks' button.0 -
maninthestreet wrote:Surely the HRA only applies to public bodies in their interaction with individuals, not interations between private individuals, e.g LL and tenant?
Do you have any links you can point us to about this?
Think you are right.
"Proceedings under the Human Rights Act can only be brought by "victims" of a breach of one or more Convention rights by a public authority. Interest groups and charities cannot bring actions unless they meet the "victim test". But they can assist those who do bring actions"
SOURCE: DCA (Dept. of Constitutional Affairs)FREEDOM IS NOT FREE0 -
prudryden wrote:Think you are right.
"Proceedings under the Human Rights Act can only be brought by "victims" of a breach of one or more Convention rights by a public authority. Interest groups and charities cannot bring actions unless they meet the "victim test". But they can assist those who do bring actions"
SOURCE: DCA (Dept. of Constitutional Affairs)
It might be interesting to debate though what role private lettings and local authorities have together. in the local authority I worked, and most Id suggest, are hell for leather getting what "should" be tenants of local authorities to take on private tenancies. thatchers legacy rumbles on....
I suspect though in order to circumnavigate any HRA issues, it would be a procedural change by individual authories rather than a wholesale dumping of the initiatives.:beer: Well aint funny how its the little things in life that mean the most? Not where you live, the car you drive or the price tag on your clothes.
Theres no dollar sign on piece of mind
This Ive come to know...
So if you agree have a drink with me, raise your glasses for a toast :beer:0 -
I think you have to wait till this confirmation of what constituted a public body, i.e is parliament a public body for the purposes of the convention.
s 3 HRA is important in that it introduces a new concept of judicial interpretation -- ie the general requirement that statutes and SIs, old and new, should be compatible with the Convention rights.Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.0 -
Some links.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070109/debtext/70109-0003.htm#07010954000002
It is quit possible that a court could refuse a possession order on human rights grounds, notwithstanding such possession might be mandatory. It would not be the first time the courts have frustrated legislation. Bear in mind the courts do not have to look to judicial precedents when applying the H.R.A. It is a stand alone act to assist in interpreting ledgislation.Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.0 -
deary65 wrote:Some links.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070109/debtext/70109-0003.htm#07010954000002
It is quit possible that a court could refuse a possession order on human rights grounds, notwithstanding such possession might be mandatory. It would not be the first time the courts have frustrated legislation. Bear in mind the courts do not have to look to judicial precedents when applying the H.R.A. It is a stand alone act to assist in interpreting ledgislation.
Are you thinking this could apply to a tenancy on a private contract (excluding HB tenants - which could be reined in under any definition change of public authority)?FREEDOM IS NOT FREE0 -
Now, this is by way of debate,i do not want to be attackted for expressing an opinion.
What I'm thinking is the courts must apply the H.R.A when making judgments. I'm not a human rights lawyer, it was some years ago since I read the act so it is not fresh in my mind. I was discussing constitutional matters with a colleague in relation to the H.R.A i.e how the courts would interpret s3 of the act.
And yes it would apply to private lettings.Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.0 -
then the courts would have to apply HRA in every case they see, whether between 2 private individuals, an individual and a company or whatever.
the intent of HRA did not include this.
e.g why did you nick food from tesco? to feed my family under HRA.
This is a non-argument, probably a mitty-esque fantasy of someones.
are there any links to valid news agencies or legal firms websites that suggest this is anything more than a glint in the eye of someone trying to "appear" clever?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards