War chest to fight L&Q ruling
Share
The biggest housing associations in London are considering ploughing funds into a war chest to challenge a court ruling that means they are now public bodies.
The G15, which represents the largest 15 associations in the capital, is looking to back London & Quadrant Group, which last week lost a landmark appeal court case. The judgement means housing associations are now exposed to judicial review proceedings under the Human Rights Act that could not be taken against them if they were non-public bodies.
Steve Howlett, chief executive of Peabody Trust and chair of the G15, said: ‘The G15 will consider how we can support L&Q if it chooses to appeal.’
When asked if this meant contributing to a possible ‘appeal fund’, Mr Howlett replied: ‘Yes - that is something that has previously been discussed.’
The case centres on tenant Susan Weaver, who fought to bring L&Q to judicial review claiming her human rights were breached by a decision to evict her.
Although her claim was dismissed last year the court ruled that L&Q was a public body under the act.
Read a full briefing on the implications of the Weaver v L&Q case
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (13)
michaelbarratt | 26/06/2009 8:11 am
ODPM/DCLG, housing associations and local authorities seeking to transfer their housing stock in company with misleadingly called independent tenants' advisors like TPAS have for years claimed that transfer of local authority housing to a housing association was NOT PRIVATISATION. Now housing associations collectively want to 'spend millions' on proving they are not in the public sector - so have former council tenants been mislead - have those tenants been conned into exchanging their secure tenancies for inferior rights
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 26/06/2009 10:40 am
michaelbarratt | Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:11 GMT....
I share you concern... I think that council tenants with secure and assured tenancies opting to join a Housing Association have taken a big, huge risk... Whatever the HA promise or promised when you joined them you simply do not know what HA will do next... It all part of what's become of an ongoing permanent attack on social tenancies making social tenants live in costant fear that their homes are at risk. By creating this climate of permanent insecurity the HAs make sure that most of their tenants do not complain, are happy with bad or no services and put up with landlord harassment of one kind or another.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
victor | 26/06/2009 11:54 am
Judicial review claiming human rights have been breached is an unnecessary waste of public resources. The tenancy agreement is a contract and if someone doesn't hold up their end of it the landlord has a right to evict them. The tenant has a right to defend themselves in court and the judge makes a decision based on all the relevant housing laws. Councils should not be subject to the extra costly steps of judicial review when they've already proven their case in court. So you can't blame housing associations for wanting to avoid additional bureaucracy - no one benefits but the lawyers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
vernony | 26/06/2009 12:14 pm
I am glad TPAS has been mention I am wondering who gave them the right to represent anyone have they canvassed tenants, or are they simply philosophising as to what tenants want ( i.e. what TPAS thinks they ought to want ?) Certainly as far as the demise of Wardens in Sheltered housing, despite three approaches from me, they have not responded. Thus, the fight to the death between residents of Sheltered Housing with housing providers and the Government has been entirely generated by the residents themselves , with not a peep from TPAS !
I object most strongly to this organisation which seems to find itself on any Government consultation as being representative of residents. Personally I cannot help but wonder if they have forgotten their roots and now think of themselves as a quasi Government body ? Or, even worse, they are so protective of their presumed importance that this has become their prime reason for existence ? Of course all the foregoing is only in my opinion !
sincerely
Vernon J Yarker
Chairman
The Sheltered Housing UK Association
www.shelteredhousinguk.com
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
vernony | 26/06/2009 12:25 pm
(Incidentally readers may be interested in reading the facial situation that is developing in respect of all residents who Transferred under LSVT - it makes one wonder if there is anybody in charge at all ! ?
You will be aware of the recent ruling in the 'Weaver' appeal and may I take this opportunity to comment upon it.
Residents of RSLs which were subject to LSVT had the protection of the Human Rights Act in actions against their landlords when they were tenants of their councils.
At the point of transfer by LSVT, they lost those specific human rights, but nobody told them that they would and many probably still do not understand that they have.
In the 'Weaver' case the judgement stated that in some instances RSLs were subject to Public Law, so the tenants regained their human rights.
London and Quadrant appealed against this and the tenants newly recovered human rights went into obeyance.
The result of the 'Weaver' appeal restored human rights to the tenants once again.
It is now likely that the housing associations will foot the bill for London and Quadrant to take the case on appeal to the House of Lords
Once again the tenants human rights will be forced into obeyance.
If London and Quadrant win at the House of Lords, the tenants will have their human rights removed yet again.
If London and Quadrant lose the tenants will have their human rights restored
In the event of London and Quadrant wining in the House of Lords, as above,
The, the tenants will take it to the European courts, once again, in the interim, tenants human rights will held in obeyance.
Should tenants win in the European Courts they will have their full human rights restored.
This whole situation is fallacious. The only motive for housing providers to appeal against this is, in essence, residents having human rights will be most difficult for them. But, presumably no more difficult to residents of councils, which are public bodies, and therefore subject to the HRA.
I don't think that the Human Rights Act is a football for housing providers to kick around and once people had those rights they could not be removed by LSVT, which is another matter entirely
Yours sincerely
Vernon J Yarker
Chairman
The Sheltered Housing UK Association
www.shelteredhousinguk.com
mailbox@shelteredhousinguk.com
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Marais | 26/06/2009 2:57 pm
Back in 1997, when we formed 'Tenants Against PRIVATISATION' in Cambridge, we got a good telling off from transfer and RSL supporters for using the dreaded 'P' word - now look at them, all lining up to blow tenants' rent on a fight to the last to defend their PRIVATE status! It would be funny, but for misled tenants it's a serious matter, concerning basic rights being taken away from them. LSVT has been a decades-long epic of deceit and bullying.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 26/06/2009 4:25 pm
Do we social tenants want London and Quadrant to fight a decision which gives us, their tenants, the excercise of human rights? Of course not. No tenant would give their HA consent to take away any rights from them... From whom London and Quadrant & Co take the authority to fight this case against our tenants' rights and do so in our name and with our rent money?... And on top of this they keep saying they listen to their tenants --- ???
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sancho | 26/06/2009 4:56 pm
L&Q (and others) are proposing to fight this decision because it could lead to JRs on any number of cases, which will cost more and waste time. I think Victor sums it up very well above.
This is nothing to do with wanting to erode human rights, its about a minor technicality opening HAs up to a different type of legal challenge that is particularly time-consuming. This talk of human rights being forced into abeyance is emotive nonsense. The question in this case was never about whether the Human Rights Act applied, it was about whether L&Q fell into a particular definition within the act.
I know many contributors to this forum find this hard to believe, but there is no conspiracy in housing, RSLs are not trying to make huge profits and they certainly don't want to get rid of their tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Marais | 26/06/2009 4:56 pm
They do sometimes listen to tenants - usually the ones who've been groomed carefully not to be 'confrontational'. If they do get uppity and act like proper tenant representatives, they seem to get chucked off the board.
Anyway, if HAs are to be 'public bodies', they could be subject to Freedom of Information enquiries. That might be interesting, and in the true spirit of transparency and openness they should surely welcome this development...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael barratt council tenant | 26/06/2009 5:16 pm
The Tories and the Liberal Democracts (Tender minded Tories by another name) are pushing by 'hook or by crook' policies intended to undermine council tenants rights to secure tenacies. I support the view of the Law Commission that Housing Association and Council tenants should have secure tenancies, especially since the Court of Appeal has upheld the judgement that Housing Associations are public bodies. The present concerns show by the G15 group of housing association is that their tenants will be awarded secure rather than the present assured tenancies. Housing association and the establishment are actively campainging for the alternative the downgrading of council secure tenancies to the inferior rights of housing association tenants.
Where are the Labour champions of the of the poor and socially disadvantage? A they also hell bent on ripping up secure tenancies? Have Labour MPs forgotten that they are supposedly the political heirs of Keir Hardy or are they all in some 'mid Atlantic blue' heaven counting their expenses and shuffling their mortgages i.e. Tory Lite by another name?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment