This article is an external press release originally published on the Landlord News website, which has now been migrated to the Just Landlords blog.
The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) has been granted permission to intervene in a repossession case in the Supreme Court.
The McDonald v McDonald case involves receivers acting on behalf of a bank, which wants to repossess a property from a defaulting private landlord.
RLA to Intervene in Supreme Court Case
However, the landlord’s daughter is living in the property. She is seeking to avoid being evicted by arguing that this would breach her human rights.
She is raising Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to respect for one’s private and family life.
After her bid failed at the Court of Appeal, she decided to take the battle to the Supreme Court.
The RLA has now been granted permission to make a written statement to the court.
The organisation believes that if the court finds in favour of the tenant, it will undermine existing section 21 legislation and give private renters the chance to invoke bogus defences under Article 8 in order to delay possession proceedings.
Barristers working with the RLA are currently compiling the written submission for the hearing, which is due to take place in March.
The Policy Consultant and Company Secretary at the RLA, Richard Jones, explains why the organisation decided to intervene: “Landlords must feel that they are under attack on all sides at the moment.
“The private rented sector has become a key provider of residential accommodation as a result of landlords having the right to automatically repossess properties once a tenancy has ended on a no fault basis, and also the right to evict tenants who have not paid their rent for at least two months.
“This case is of fundamental importance because it challenges these rights. If the tenant succeeds then we can expect defences being raised claiming human rights, particularly to delay claims for possession. In the meantime, rent arrears could be mounting.
“The RLA took the decision to intervene in this case to make sure that the Supreme Court was made aware of the consequences, as well as giving us the opportunity to challenge the tenant’s claims.”1
Do you agree with the tenant’s claim? Or do you agree with the RLA, that this case could damage the eviction process in the future?
