Test case for landlords under EU Human rights act possible?

Reply to the comment left by " " at "07/07/2015 - 07:40":

Julie, I would have expected a professional response, as I am keen as possible to get into a discussion about aspects of housing. However, your comment at 06-07-15, 15.46 shows a certain predisposition. This is further shown by your deletion of profile reasons pointing a finger elsewhere instead of engaging with what happened. You could so easily have continued here as it is evident you have support from the site owner and would certainly have got this from myself and others.

It's really diappointing that you are not here, but it's also disappointing that it seems you have acted in a less than professional way.

Essentially councils are advising tenants to ignore the order of the Court/Judge, which they should not be doing.

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "08/07/2015 - 11:27":

I agree.

Perhaps a better test case would be to push for a contempt of Court ruling?

I don't think the EU Human Rights angles suggested in this thread would get very far on the basis that buy-to-let is treated as an investment as opposed to a trade, even though I disagree with that too. Nevertheless, it's about picking the right battles.

What is really needed, in my humble opinion, it is to give a barrister a clear "head shot" at a Council Official who has been recorded giving this advice to a tenant. Ideally this would be achieved by an undercover TV documentary. Does anybody following this thread have any TV contacts they could share this idea with?

I'm sure Mark Smith (Barrister-At-Law) at Cotswold Barristers would have a keen interest in such a case, if only for PR purposes. See his Property118 member profile here >>> http://www.property118.com/member/?id=1945
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "08/07/2015 - 11:36":

Hi Mark, Would agree but I feel there could be a much easier way to catch a council using such tactics.

Reply to the comment left by "Peter Fisher - Boddington Law - (Fixed Fee Law)" at "08/07/2015 - 11:52":

Happy to discuss on or offline.

It matters not to me who exposes this practice to the media, just that it gets done 🙂
.

A test case would be great and fire one across the bow of representatives of these organisations.

One the show "cant pay we will take it away" the tenants being evicted on the show openly stated that council workers stated to them to just stay put in the property until the bailiffs turned, there was no mediation or attempt to investigate the problem or where the housing benefit had been spent.

I would like to think that with training the staff engaging in this practice would stop, but with the critical housing shortage held by local authorities, and with it due to get worse with the new right to buy policy, i doubt if training will stop it so until a case is brought against a local authority/CAB member of staff i believe it will only get worse.

I am sure there is a legal angel to be investigated, i dont suppose there is an ex CAB/local authority worker on this site who is now a landlord ? A whistle blower would be ideal.

Andrew

Reply to the comment left by "Andrew Holmes" at "08/07/2015 - 12:35":

Hi Andrew

I am an ex CAB caseworker, and also an ex council Homelessness Officer, and I am now (and was then) a landlord. However, I have never personally advised a tenant to stay put until the bailiffs arrive, and indeed my usual argument is that the person is homeless as soon as the rent becomes unsustainable as it is no longer "reasonable to continue to occupy" (there is case law to back this up). As such, that is the point when the Council should step in and either give the landlord more Housing Benefit (or DHP), or re-house the tenant. This would avoid the rent arrears increasing and would avoid the landlord needing to go to court to evict, and would also reduce the overall debt of the tenant. This "unaffordability" point would generally occur many months before the landlord starts any possession proceedings.

What's the case, Robert? Useful info to have in back pocket if ever needed to bash the Council with.

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "08/07/2015 - 14:38":

Hi Luke

It is the case of R v Hillingdon LBC ex p Tinn (1988). Another case that also supports the assertion that someone should be accepted as "homeless" if they cannot afford their accommodation is the case of R v Wandsworth LBC ex p Hawthorne (1994).

Councils do not like accepting someone as "homeless" on the basis of affordability (perhaps fearing it could open the floodgates to hundreds of applicants?), even when their own Homelessness Officers point it out to them (!), so they will try to avoid accepting this contention, either by rejecting the argument completely (as most applicants would not appeal), or by delaying the decision for as long as possible, or by accepting the homelessness duty on different grounds (so as not to potentially open those "floodgates").

These two important cases are not well known, but will become increasingly important as the Benefit Cap forces people to choose between feeding their children or paying the rent (particularly under the Universal Credit regime).

Reply to the comment left by "Robert Mellors" at "08/07/2015 - 14:20":

Hi Robert,

I read your earlier comment to Julie where you stated that you have worked as a homeless officer and for the CAB whilst a landlord.

When i wrote my last comment i did have you in mind but obviously didnt want to ask you to comment unless you felt you wanted to, i was also hoping that maybe there were more out there reading these comments.

The cases you go on to mention is interesting, it seems the bar has been set legal wise but local councils etc are ignoring it, it would be interesting to see if the issue was pressed where it would go.

There are a few legal representatives on here and it would be interesting to see what they think of this.

It would be nice to take the pressure of private landlords and put it back onto local authorities, i do not say that out of spite but they do have an obligation to work with private landlords and also to investigate where Thousands upon Thousands of pounds go missing in housing benefits that tenants make disappear when they do not pay their rent, it is then left to private landlords to fight to get funds back via court.

It is an unfortunate situation, there are no winners in this situation apart from the tenant who has brought themselves a new wide screen TV and then use their children to be re housed. I am sure there is a simple solution and perhaps a mandatory stance that housing benefit gets paid direct to the landlord with no exceptions.

Andrew