Home » Uncategorised »
Tenant Loses Case in Supreme Court that Could Have Prevented Evictions
This article is an external press release originally published on the Landlord News website, which has now been migrated to the Just Landlords blog.
A private tenant has lost a case in the Supreme Court that could have prevented evictions in the future.
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a tenant who claimed a possession order on her home was a breach of her human rights.
Lawyers say that the ruling will be welcome news to private landlords and their mortgage providers.
Tenant Loses Case in Supreme Court that Could Have Prevented Evictions
Had the court ruled in the tenant’s favour, the case could have prevented both landlords and lenders from securing possession of their properties through the courts.
The landmark case, McDonald v McDonald, involved a tenant on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy who had mental health problems and rented the property from her parents.
When her parents fell into arrears on their mortgage, receivers appointed by the lender issued a possession order.
The tenant opposed the possession order on the grounds that it breached her right to respect of her home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
She also claimed that the receivers had not been entitled to serve notice on her in their own names.
The Supreme Court heard the case in March, after initial hearings at Oxford County Court and the Court of Appeal.
Yesterday, five Supreme Court judges ruled unanimously that the tenant’s rights under Article 8 were not infringed by the possession order.
The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) formally intervened in the case to ensure that the rights of landlords and lenders to reclaim possession at the end of a tenancy or lending period remained.
The Policy Director of the RLA, David Smith, says: “It is sad that it has taken this particular case to clarify this important point of law, but if the appeal had been allowed, it would have completely undermined the ability of landlords to reclaim possession of their property at the end of a tenancy.
“It could have opened the door to those tenants who might seek to make false accusations to remain in a property.”
Smith continues: “This would have severely damaged the confidence of landlords to let properties and lenders to provide the funds for the homes to rent the country needs.
“Whilst welcoming the court judgement, it does act as a reminder that landlords should be clear that they can keep up with mortgage payments, even through difficult financial times.”
However, the tenant could still pursue her case… In the European Court of Human Rights.
