New ECHR Ruling on Eviction and Rent Owing

keyser666

Anyone seen this? Had a search of the forum and dont see it posted but it is late and am somewhat tired.

LINK

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, judges ruled yesterday.

Town Hall chiefs wanted to evict Rebecca Powell, who receives thousands of pounds in benefits, after she ran up more than £3,500 in arrears on the accommodation she was given because she was homeless.

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’.

Council leaders and the Government had fought the case and fear it may now be harder to evict thousands of council tenants who fall into arrears.

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

Passing yesterday’s judgment, Lord Hope made it clear the ruling had its origins in Strasbourg. He said the ‘time had come to accept and apply the jurisprudence of the European court’.

The ruling brought fresh demands for reform of Labour’s Human Rights Act, which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, and of the unelected Strasbourg court.

It comes in the wake of cases saying that prisoners must be entitled to vote and that !!!!!philes can apply to be taken off the Sex Offender Register.

Last night Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘It seems to me that the courts always find in favour of the human rights of people who are doing something wrong. We have got to change that balance, it is getting completely out of hand.

‘What about the human rights of the landlord to get their rent, what about the human rights of the taxpayer?’

ValHaller

I think that prisoners having the vote would be a good thing, although in Ireland where this is the case, the actual take up us apparently very low.

I hope you will thank me keyser, for my assistance in getting everyone frothing at the mouth.

zzzLazyDaisy

This is a case from FEBRUARY 2011, that went to appeal, along with several others from around the country, to clarify various legal points.

Here is the case if any one is interested

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0111_Judgment.pdf

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

keyser666

Thanks both

tim123456789

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

This is a case from FEBRUARY 2011, that went to appeal,

well of course it did, there is no other route to getting a case in the supreme court

tim

martindow

How did I guess this was a Daily Mail 'news' story!

zzzLazyDaisy

tim123456789 wrote: »

well of course it did, there is no other route to getting a case in the supreme court

tim

What I meant was it is two and a half years ago, and concerned a number of local authorities seeking clarification on various points of law ... not just this one 'daily fail fodder' story.

tim123456789

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

What I meant was it is two and a half years ago, and concerned a number of local authorities seeking clarification on various points of law ... not just this one 'daily fail fodder' story.

I accept that you might have a valid point about it not being "new".

But I can't see why the fact that the good Lords considered more than one case at the same time negates the effect of any one particular ruling that they made on that day

tim