Courts to Consider Human Rights When Evicting Tenants

A single judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court in Manchester City Council v Pinnock which, while ultimately rejecting the tenant’s appeal against eviction, reverses the recent law that it wasn’t open to the County Courts to consider ‘proportionality’. Welcome news for tenants of course, but not necessarily as bad for landlords as one might think. It is not simply a question of proportion in isolation, it is still within the context of a legal system which allows possession proceedings to be bought.

The case in question involved Mr Pinnock, a tenant of Manchester City Council for 30 years, whose tenancy was demoted after the anti-social behaviour of some of his five (now adult) children. Manchester City Council sought a possession order the day before he would have regained his security of tenure, as a result of allegations of further anti-social behaviour by his sons. The case was fought to the Supreme Court, arguing that the possession order violated his right to respect for his home (under Article 8) on the ground that it was disproportionate because he had never had any allegations made against him personally.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that his eviction was proportionate. More importantly however they chose to apply the approach of the European Court of Human Rights, rather than the approach taken in English law, in saying that proportionality should be considered. It means that Article 8 defences are now, in appropriate cases, available in the County Court. However the Supreme Court did stress that, where a public sector landlord had a clear right to possession, there would be a "very strong case" for saying the order was proportionate, as was the case with Mr Pinnock.

For the time being however, the judgment also made it clear this development only applies to "public body" landlords and not to private landlords

Oliver Kew

Published on 15/11/2010