Evicting rent defaulters is against their 'umin rights!

bris

You can just end the tenancy at the expiration of the AST. Once they are out sue for the rent arrears in a small claims court. This doesn't give them any rights, if the paperwork is served correctly, the judge has no choice but to give them their marching orders.

tamarto

Needhelpsaving wrote: »

I appreciate that people have human rights, but where are the landlords rights? People have said in newspapers etc that they actually come to the UK or if British fail to pay rent as our laws on this are so lenient.

Unfortunatley, it seems that people who are going to work, abiding the law etc are at the bottom of the human rights list.

Oh well if people say it in the papers it must be true....

Last time i looked no one was forced at gun point into being a LL.

It only seems that way if you believe the dross spouted in the DM.

FTBFun

evoke wrote: »

Try speaking your mind about various sexual lifestyles, religions or races and see how far it gets you these days. The 'liberals' have promoted deviant, immoral lifestyles whilst silencing true free speech.

Quite what anyone's private life has to do with you is beyond me.

FTBFun

evoke wrote: »

All of the human rights laws are simply garbage. Just garbage. They are designed to line the pockets of ambulance chasing lawyers and those who think that society owes them a living.

Not a single part of the human rights garbage promotes responsibility for your own actions. Human rights laws are defeatist by their very nature. They dictate that someone else is responsible for you and you have no responsibility towards anyone or anything.

And we are where we are today because of the looney liberal-left. Of that there is no doubt.

Under the wonderful Margaret Thatcher we created captains of industry, entrepreneurs and businessmen who kept our country afloat and the United Kingdom was the envy of the world.

Under left-wing liberalism we are the toilet of the world - a toilet bowl to all and sundry who come here specifically for handouts. And the liberal-left don't care because the majority of them are on handouts or in public sector non-jobs paid for by hard-working taxpayers in the private sector.

You are Peter Hitchens, aren't you?

poppysarah

tamarto wrote: »

Oh well if people say it in the papers it must be true....

Last time i looked no one was forced at gun point into being a LL.

It was a council property...

tamarto

poppysarah wrote: »

It was a council property...

The poster i quoted was talking about poor ickle LLs though.:huh:

sonastin

evoke wrote: »

All of the human rights laws are simply garbage. Just garbage. They are designed to line the pockets of ambulance chasing lawyers and those who think that society owes them a living.

...

Under left-wing liberalism we are the toilet of the world - a toilet bowl to all and sundry who come here specifically for handouts.

In my opinion, if people lucky enough to live in the UK think that our laws are too liberal in permitting free speech, prohibiting torture, enshrining the right to a fair trial and so on then perhaps those people ought to consider emigrating to somewhere more aligned with their right wing views. I hear Libya is somewhat less prissy about Human Rights.

(this being the view of a tax-paying private sector worker)

squinty

Behind the headlines from the Daily Mail this seems a sensible decision.

My understanding is that the tenant was a non-secure tenant as she had previously been homeless (most council tenants are secure tenants).

She was in rent arrears but claimed that this was due to an error with housing benefit and that the council were at fault in not processing her claim.

The council tried to evict her as the only remedy.

The court have decided that the council were wrong to do this, and they should have had in place a system that looked at the whole picture and not just the rent arrears.

What it could mean for councils is that there is more of a requirement to show that they have tried to resolve a problem and provided some support to vulnerable tenants (and as someone who was accepted as homeless the tenant was vulnerable) rather than just seeking possession.

This does suggest that Hounslows internal procedures were lacking.

For anyone interesed this follows a similarcase last year Manchester Council v-Pinnock
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk//6512350.article

And, being pedantic, despite what the DM is saying, this is not taxpayers money it is rent payers money (except in the sense that most rent payers are also tax payers).

DVardysShadow

squinty wrote: »

Behind the headlines from the Daily Mail this seems a sensible decision. ...
She was in rent arrears but claimed that this was due to an error with housing benefit and that the council were at fault in not processing her claim.

The council tried to evict her as the only remedy.

The court have decided that the council were wrong to do this, and they should have had in place a system that looked at the whole picture and not just the rent arrears.

Ah, thanks for that. So essentially, the people who think she should not have human rights are essentially arguing that the council should spend council taxpayers money to take someone to court who owes them money despite being themselves responsible for the maladministration which lead to the debt in the first place.

chris_m

In other words, it's got s*d all to do with human rights, more to do with council wrongs - but, of course, that wouldn't suit the Daily Wail's muck-raking agenda.