"Human rights may block evictions" - Landlord and BTL Magazine

FTBFun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Everyone knows tenants in the UK don't really count as people, so I doubt they are afforded the protection of human rights laws designed to ensure human beings are treated with dignity and afforded somewhere suitable to live. Not like, Abu Qatada for example.

Private tenants won't be as actions between private individuals aren't covered by the HRA.

Abu Qatada's deportation is between him and HM Government so is.

That's it really, nothing to do with your little rant there.

the_flying_pig

The-Joker wrote: »

Sounds great to me, can I stop paying rent now and give it a go?...

i doubt it.

let me know if you succeed, though.

if so i might photoshop up myself a few goldman sachs payslips, take out a £10m mortgage on a big pile on the bishop's avenue in hampstead, default on the mortgage in month two, but use my human rights to stay in it thereafter.

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 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.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/8.html
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/valuable-possession-take-2
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2010/11/brave-new-world-or-same-old-story/

kabayiri

FTBFun wrote: »

...
I do find it strange that the ECHR being effectively a British idea based upon the British ideas of civil liberties is often regarded as a bunch of foreign johnnies interfering....

Do you think it being a British led idea is the reason why places like Russia and Eastern Europe (amongst others) generally ignore it?

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

!!!!!! wrote: »

HRA was designed to prevent public authorities abusing people's human rights. It was never the intention of the convention to deal with anything else.

Pulling this out of your 4r$e is one thing, but you could have at least cleaned it up before posting.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Mr Blair also got Human Rights written into our legal framework. (I wonder how much of that was due to Cherie nagging?!)

The problem is other countries (as close as Italy). They pay lip service to the convention, but fall short in practise.

I don't imagine that the McCarthay hearings were what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution either!

However, IMHO the US Constitution, amendments and Bill of Rights are the most wonderful and important things ever written (even if they did get some things wrong like putting prohibition into the constitution).

System

secondlegdownisthebigone wrote: »

pulling this out of your 4r$e is one thing, but you could have at least cleaned it up before posting.

!!!!!!?,,,,,,,,,

dlk

wotsthat wrote: »

How odd. You rent but yesterday you owned a BTL.

That's quite plausible. I own 3 buy to lets but I still rent my own home

The_White_Horse

people on benefits should have no rights. they should just be grateful for the handout and shut up.