Is this the end of the road for travellers?
Introduction
The House of Lords has recently grappled with the difficult task of balancing the rights of gypsies and travellers to continue a travelling lifestyle, with the rights of public sector landowners to take action against anyone trespassing on their land.
The Background
The cases troubling the Law Lords involved two Councils - the London Borough of Lambeth ("Lambeth") and Leeds City Council ("Leeds")
Lambeth's case involved a group of occupiers of "short life" premises owned by Lambeth. The premises comprised properties which were scheduled for demolition, redevelopment or other works and which were no longer considered suitable for normal housing. Lambeth had an arrangement with a local Housing Association to manage these short life premises, but this agreement came to an end. The Claimant, Kay and others, claimed that as they had previously been tenants of the Housing Association, they had become secure tenants of Lambeth upon the property coming back within Lambeth's control. In addition they claimed that their eviction from the property was an infringement of the rights to respect for private and family life and home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR).
The Leeds case involved proceedings where Leeds has successfully obtained possession from a family of gypsies who had moved without permission onto a recreational ground owned by Leeds. Again, the family claimed that the eviction violated their right under Article 8 of ECHR.
In both of these cases the 2003 ruling in the case of Harrow LBC (1) v Qazi (2) was considered. The Qazi case had established that Article 8 of the ECHR could not be used as a defence to resisting contractual and proprietary rights which entitled the Landlord to possession under domestic law.
The Decision
The House of Lords held that the human rights safeguarded by Article 8 and the contractual or proprietary rights under domestic law of landlords were not mutually exclusive.
As such the possession actions taken by Lambeth and Leeds were upheld
The Law Lords did however leave the door open for a potential further challenge by travellers. The Law Lords said that the Courts would be obliged to consider a challenge if there was a seriously arguable case that;
- the domestic law which gives the public authority the right to take possession was incompatible with Article 8; or
- the decision of a public authority to recover possession was an improper exercise of its powers on the ground that it was a decision that no reasonable person would consider justifiable
The Impact of this Decision
It is believed that the evicted occupiers in both cases are considering whether to appeal these decisions to the European Court.
Until any further decision is made public bodies need to ensure that they are exercising their powers reasonably before commencing trespass actions. In the majority of cases, domestic law will automatically supply the justification required to interfere with the rights given by Article 8. From a practical perspective detailed file notes should be kept, setting out precisely the reasons for taking action and what factors have been taken into account by the authority.
Ashfords has a specialist housing team, who would be happy to provide any assistance :
T: 01392 33 4114
E: housing@ashfords.co.uk
Ashfords is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The information in this article is intended to be general information about English law only and not comprehensive. It is not to be relied on as legal advice nor as an alternative to taking professional advice relating to specific circumstances.
|
