6th
Jun 2016
Case Law 15 June 2016 McDonald v McDonald – The Supreme Court has ruled that private tenants cannot rely on the right to a private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights to challenge a mandatory possession order.Tenants in the private rented sector can no longer attempt to block the landlords right to evict by citing it is contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Therefore such cases may no longer be funded using Legal Aid for they would fail the proportionality test – In essence no matter how sympathetic a judge is to a tenant’s personal plight’ they must uphold the landlord’s right to possession.
The Supreme Court has ruled that in legitimate repossession cases those lenders, landlords and lettings agents when taking tenants to court to claim back their rental property should not be hindered by the tenants’ rights to a family and private life.
The protection for all people to have a private and family life is legislated within the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that the protection covers tenants who through no fault of their own are being evicted. Those landlords, letting agents and lenders, who have legitimate causes for repossession claims, are able to do so without having the Human Rights Article being used against them.
In a recent case of McDonald v McDonald a daughter rented a property from her parents, however because they underwent severe financial problems they lost the property. The lender embarked on the repossession claim process, the daughter appealed against the action citing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights for a private and family life.
The lower courts however backed the lender and her case was dismissed, she then went to the Supreme Court and in spite of her trying to invoke the clause in her favour, it was thrown out.
News Archive »