Human Rights May Block Evictions( supreme court ruling)

deary65

Landlords in the private sector face prospect of not be able to evict private tenants. It seems the courts being a public body have to apply the HRA 1998

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1wkfq/LandlordampBuytoLetM/resources/22.htm

brit1234

Yet another good reason to give up being a landlord along with falling house prices/rents, increasing voids and new EU legislation.

jjlandlord

This is based on a previous decision, quoted in the article, regarding a local council trying to evict someone who owed £3k in rent when she was entitled to £15k but did not apply for it properly.

This is a publication looking for good stories, but it will fail...

princeofpounds

Scaremongering. Even if it did apply to private landlords, and that is highly doubtful, the only requirement would be to *consider* whether it was proportionate action. It doesn't even seem to require the action to actually *be* proportionate, based on the wording used.

At the moment it's hard to evict people for 'non-proportionate' reasons using Section 8 anyway; few judges are going to allow tenants to be evicted because they broke their tenancies by keeping a stick insect, for example.

DVardysShadow

Cue more misplaced outrage about Human Rights.

Hump

Others have pointed out that proportionality defences would only be considered in highly exceptional cases for cases involving public bodies i.e. councils and housing associations - private landlords should, I think, rest easy - though that doesn't sell magazines (nb we're all doomed I tell you, doomed) - see http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/8.html

deary65

In principle an Art 8 defence could be raised against a claim brought by a private landlord. In both Zehentner v Austria (20082/02) and Belchikova v Russia (2408/06) the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that—even where the claimant was a private person—Art 8 required that the court assess the proportionality of an eviction.
This is what I have been looking for:

antrobus

deary65 wrote: »

In principle an Art 8 defence could be raised against a claim brought by a private landlord. In both Zehentner v Austria (20082/02) and Belchikova v Russia (2408/06) the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that—even where the claimant was a private person—Art 8 required that the court assess the proportionality of an eviction....:

Cut and paste from - http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/valuable-possession-take-2

However; the case of Zehentner v Austria (20082/02) didn't involve a tenancy so its application is unclear. Belchikova v Russia (2408/06) was addressed in Manchester v Pinnock 2010 as in;

the application was held to be inadmissible, but the EurCtHR (First Section) seems to have considered that article 8 was relevant, even when the person seeking possession was a private sector landowner. Presumably, this was on the basis that the court making the order was itself a public authority. But it is not clear whether the point was in contention. In the rather older admissibility decision of Di Palma v United Kingdom (App no 11949/86) [1986] ECHR 19, (1986) 10 EHRR 149, 155-156, the Commission seems to have taken a different view, but the point was only very briefly discussed.

That's a long way from a decision by the ECHR that article 8 does apply to private landlords.

deary65

This is what a read from the supreme court decision, that the court being a public body if asked to consider the HRA 1998 has to do so. In any case it will be interesting to read the judges articulations on those cases by private tenants currently going before the court using article 8 of the convention.

tbs624

Discussion on this topic http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2010/11/brave-new-world-or-same-old-story/ and an update http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/02/hounslow-v-powell-newsflash/