Evicting rent defaulters is against their 'umin rights!

amcluesent

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

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

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’.

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

FACT - 'professional' tenants will soon cotton on to this! Another trick to stay in your house rent free, with no need to get themselves preggers!

david29dpo

Emigrate, quick, only going to get worse.

evoke

You really couldn't make this up. The less you contribute to society, the more the law protects you.

It's a kick in the teeth for hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers who don't claim a penny in benefits. The scroungers are laughing in our faces. And they're getting the last laugh too.

This country is fast becoming a toilet

You only have to read the countless threads on here where a neighbour defaulting on their contractual agreement is given page after page of advice on how to thwart eviction.

Jowo_2

Stirling council decided a few years ago to scrap evicting their council tenants. The rate of rent arrears increased....

blt

evoke wrote: »

You really couldn't make this up. The less you contribute to society, the more the law protects you.

It's a kick in the teeth for hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers who don't claim a penny in benefits. The scroungers are laughing in our faces. And they're getting the last laugh too.

This country is fast becoming a toilet

You only have to read the countless threads on here where a neighbour defaulting on their contractual agreement is given page after page of advice on how to thwart eviction.

I have to physically restrain myself from just typing PAY YOUR OWN WAY!!! It's so annoying. I previously rented out my own home as I'd moved in with my now husband. The family I rented to paid late, incomplete and pretty much wrecked my house. It wa so awful that I just decided to pout the damage right and sell it. It's as though poeople think they have some sort of right for the rest of us to pay their way. Grrr.

martindow

How could I guess that this article was in the Mail? Here is an account of the issues involved from a more reliable source written before the judgement.

http://ukscblog.com/case-preview-frisby-v-birmingham-cc-hounslow-lbc-v-powell-leeds-cc-v-hall

Shall we wait for a balanced account of the judgement before we start commenting?

DVardysShadow

From TFA

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.

It looks to me like there may be more to this ruling than the Mail reveals.

Again from TFA [emphasis added]

under the controversial European Convention on Human Rights

There is nothing controversial about the ECHR - which has been around for over 50 years and was signed up to by Churchill's post war government I believe, but not enacted into UK law until Blair's government. I defy anyone to find a single item of controversy in the text of the ECHR - people who say it is controversial don't ever refer to the text. All the controversy is in the application of Human Rights law. Unfortunately, some powerful people with an agenda like to use these cases to discredit the ECHRAnd unfortunately too many ordinary people are happy to go along with discrediting the ECHR without realising what it is.

jamespir

weve already had a post on this

poppysarah

evoke wrote: »

It's a kick in the teeth for hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers who don't claim a penny in benefits. The scroungers are laughing in our faces. And they're getting the last laugh too.

Whilst it's an appalling use of the human rights law it doesn't say that only renters or council house tenants have a right to a home does it?

It's a massive signal for everyone to stop paying rent and mortgages.

N79

The case is Frimsby vs Birmingham.

Obviously we need to await the report but the point of law appealed to the Supreme Court was a very dull technical point on the treatment of Housing Act 1985 tenancies vs Demoted tenancies (ie Housing Act 1988 as amended tenancies).

Nothing to do with Human Rights at all.

poppysarah

DVardysShadow wrote: »

There is nothing controversial about the ECHR - which has been around for over 50 years and was signed up to by Churchill's post war government I believe, but not enacted into UK law until Blair's government. I defy anyone to find a single item of controversy in the text of the ECHR - people who say it is controversial don't ever refer to the text. All the controversy is in the application of Human Rights law. Unfortunately, some powerful people with an agenda like to use these cases to discredit the EHCR. And unfortunately too many ordinary people are happy to go along with discrediting the EHCR without realising what it is.

That's like saying dog poo doesn't smell until you get near enough to smell it though.