Woman owing £3.5k cannot be evicted
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360046/Ne...
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 paedophiles 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?’
Miss Powell, now 23, was given a home in Cranford, West London, by Hounslow Council in April 2007. By June the following year Miss Powell, who lives with her partner and four children, owed the council more than £3,500.
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.
Eviction proceedings began but were halted when Miss Powell appealed under the Human Rights Act. At one stage the council moved the family out in order to renovate the home at taxpayers’ expense, then moved them back in.
Yesterday, Lord Hope and Lord Phillips ruled that the council had not considered whether it was ‘proportionate’ to evict Miss Powell and ordered that the eviction be quashed.
Hounslow Council, anticipating defeat, has offered her ‘suitable alternative accommodation’ and she has never been without a home.
Judges will have to consider the ruling when looking at similar cases involving people who would otherwise be homeless.
Miss Powell has agreed to clear her arrears of £3,536.39 at £5 per week, or sooner if she can.
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 paedophiles 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?’
Miss Powell, now 23, was given a home in Cranford, West London, by Hounslow Council in April 2007. By June the following year Miss Powell, who lives with her partner and four children, owed the council more than £3,500.
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.
Eviction proceedings began but were halted when Miss Powell appealed under the Human Rights Act. At one stage the council moved the family out in order to renovate the home at taxpayers’ expense, then moved them back in.
Yesterday, Lord Hope and Lord Phillips ruled that the council had not considered whether it was ‘proportionate’ to evict Miss Powell and ordered that the eviction be quashed.
Hounslow Council, anticipating defeat, has offered her ‘suitable alternative accommodation’ and she has never been without a home.
Judges will have to consider the ruling when looking at similar cases involving people who would otherwise be homeless.
Miss Powell has agreed to clear her arrears of £3,536.39 at £5 per week, or sooner if she can.
Tsippy said:
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.
This seems ridiculous. So she was actually entitled to receive benefit that would have covered her rent, but because of some bureaucratic reason (which we are unaware of) she did not get it. It seems to me that it would have been far easier and less costly for the council to address that problem, than go through the expense of a legal hearing to evict her. Especially considering they would still be obliged to give her accommodation even if they were successful.tank slapper said:
This seems ridiculous. So she was actually entitled to receive benefit that would have covered her rent, but because of some bureaucratic reason (which we are unaware of) she did not get it. It seems to me that it would have been far easier and less costly for the council to address that problem, than go through the expense of a legal hearing to evict her. Especially considering they would still be obliged to give her accommodation even if they were successful.
You are applying joined up thinking. Sadly, those who infect the state benefits system appear not to undertake the same process. So they waste time and money - but hey, it's not their money!tank slapper said:
Tsippy said:
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.
This seems ridiculous. So she was actually entitled to receive benefit that would have covered her rent, but because of some bureaucratic reason (which we are unaware of) she did not get it. 
tank slapper said:
Tsippy said:
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.
This seems ridiculous. So she was actually entitled to receive benefit that would have covered her rent, but because of some bureaucratic reason (which we are unaware of) she did not get it. It seems to me that it would have been far easier and less costly for the council to address that problem, than go through the expense of a legal hearing to evict her. Especially considering they would still be obliged to give her accommodation even if they were successful.MX7 said:
Or may be she didn't apply for it properly.
I did actually read the article, hence my quoting it.Considering it is a council property, and the council (via housing benefit) would be funding it, it would be in their interest to ensure that the application was correct. We don't know why she wasn't receiving it, as the phrase used in the article could cover a very large number of reasons.
tank slapper said:
We don't know why she wasn't receiving it
You seem to."So she was actually entitled to receive benefit that would have covered her rent, but because of some bureaucratic reason (which we are unaware of) she did not get it."
How can you say that, and then say that we don't know why she wasn't getting it?
MX7 said:
How can you say that, and then say that we don't know why she wasn't getting it?
The quote is "had not applied for it properly", which implies that she had applied for it, but there was some problem with the application. The article does not say what that problem was. In other words, the reason she was not receiving it was bureaucratic, and not that she wasn't entitled to it.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
What are the implications of this ruling on 'Private' Landlords?
Do you mean those who are housing benefit people? Just thinking of the fairly long standing law the the HRA applies to those undertaking the "work" of the state (came up with Old people's homes IIRC) so they may well bound.Obviously a private landlord as in someone who rents to a couple who both work and don't have housing benefit would not be bound by the HRA as it's only those who are Govt or, as above, undertaking the work of the Govt.
opening post said said:
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’.
It's the council's home, she is merely a tenant. Therefore you need to respect the council's demand for payment on it's home.But then that's the problem with the European Convention on Human Rights, both sides can if they want read it as being in their favour because it's an almighty huge politically correct f
k up of immense proportions.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff