Human rights ruling halts eviction
Councils could face increased pressure not to evict tenants who go into arrears after a Supreme Court ruling.
Hounslow Council tried to evict Rebecca Powell, 23, because she owed more than £3,500 in arrears. The council had housed her in temporary accommodation after she became homeless in April 2007.
She was entitled to £15,000 in housing benefit but had not applied for it properly.
The council began eviction procedures, but stopped when Ms Powell appealed under the Human Rights Act.
The Supreme Court ruled last week that under the European Convention on Human Rights it would be wrong to evict Ms Powell as it would be a breach of ‘respect for a person’s home’.
The judge said the council had not considered whether it was ‘proportionate’ to evict her.
Last week’s hearing follows on from the Pinnock case last year. This ruled courts should test the proportionality of landlord’s decision to carry out mandatory possession proceedings, taking into account a tenant’s personal circumstances.
A spokesperson for Hounslow Council said: ‘This is an evolving area of law. Hounslow argued this case and its position was vindicated as evidenced by the results in both the county court and Court of Appeal.
‘Judgement in the case of Pinnock was handed down on 3 November 2010 and set binding precedent. Ms Powell was heard on 23 November 2010 and on the advice of counsel, alternative accommodation was provided to Ms Powell to limit costs and avoid the necessity of a rehearing in the county court.
‘Hounslow Council and no doubt other councils will be concerned about the implications of this case in terms of the management and allocation of its housing resources.’
Ms Powell has agreed to clear her debt at a rate of £5 per week, or more if possible.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (43)
Sidney Webb | 28/02/2011 12:50 pm
Yes - it would have been proportionate to have offered assistance rather than legal action - thus avoiding the debt in the first place and saving the local tax payer £100,000s in legal fees. The media are trying to blame the legal costs on the tenant for daring to stand up for her rights - but surely had she been advised, helped, or genrally assisted earlier on this whole sorry affair could have been averted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Outside Housing | 28/02/2011 12:57 pm
European Convention on Human Rights says - "breach of ‘respect for a person’s home"
Judge says - "proportionality"
I say - "fairness". If a person can't be evicted for owing a lot of money and in this case probably wouldn't be even if they defaulted on the £5 per week, how fair is that on the homeless applicants in unsatisfactory accommodation waiting for a social housing property?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sarahc | 28/02/2011 1:06 pm
PSR, you have no idea whether the tenant had received any advice or assistance from the council before they headed for the courts. In fact, the pre-court protocols insist that landlords try every avenue to assist their tenants to pay their rent and deal with their arrears before taking action to evict them. Equally, since this tenant undoubtedly had legal representation to help her in her fight with the council, I can't understand why they apparently did not also assist her to claim HB "properly". I don't blame her for fighting for her home - but she maybe should have put more effort into dealing with her arrears before it got this far.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Read | 28/02/2011 1:37 pm
She was entitled to HB but had declined to claim hence accummulating the arrears.
Is it the case the local authority went down the adverserial route of seeking possession on the basis that they thought they had such a good case they would recover their costs.
Cue the claimant, armed with a legal aid certificate and lawyers who believed she had a case to argue.
That's how you get to £200k legal costs, as reported in the Daily Mail.
Conclusion? Surely, there was a sensible argument to be made when the debt was at £3500, and a recognition that the claimant was entitled to legal aid, that an orderly withdrawal was the best course of action.
Not a chance ... when both sides are armed by taxpayers' money.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 28/02/2011 2:05 pm
Sarah - simple logic - if they had discovered the failure to properly obtain HB there would have been no case to take to court.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sarahc | 28/02/2011 2:29 pm
Its not simple at all. What would you have the council do? say, "oh she won't claim HB and she won't pay the rent herself so lets just allow her to live there rent free"? I don't know if you understand this, but the council cannot claim HB on a tenant's behalf. The tenant HAS to do this for themself. I don't know the full circumstances of this case and I don't trust the Daily Mail to be anything other than anti-tenant, but it does sound to me as if she did what many tenants do - fail to do anything about mounting arrears until it gets to court and then wait for the court to impose an agreement on them. £3500 at £5 per week means she will be paying this off for the next 13 years.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 28/02/2011 2:52 pm
Not at all, but I would expect any creditor to check with the debtor about the cicumstances of the debt, simply as good recovery practice. Where the creditor is a local authority landlord it seems sensible, if only from the required sustainment approach, to check, for instance, that all claimable benefit is being paid. In the event that it is discovered that a claim for benefit was turned down on a technicality, and that a clear entitlement would otherwise exist, it seems a little churlish to take the tenant to court.
Yes the tenant has a responsibility, but so does the local authority. Where the latter has failed then the former's failure is where the proportionate ruling arises. Do you not see that the real original error is the lack of advice in the completion of the claim, or the failure to questiin the error.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Read | 28/02/2011 2:53 pm
So the rules meant that the council had a responsibility to spend £200k to recover that £3,500.
Only in local government.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sian Ferguson | 28/02/2011 3:05 pm
. . . remember "North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews (and three other cases) [2004] EWCA Civ 1736"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 28/02/2011 3:06 pm
I remember the Alamo - how about a brief outline Sian?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment