Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

[UnitedFront]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Yes, I'm sure he is CP. I'm sure he is. YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION!!!

I know what the Magna Carta says. I know what the other statutes say, too.

BUT WHAT PROVISION OF THE MAGNA CARTA RELATES TO YOUR CASE, AND HOW???

I fear that you are so deluded that you are beyond help.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

The thread is wrongly named - it should say 'constitutional rights'.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

I fear that you are so deluded that you are beyond help.

AH HA!!
I'm merely getting some dinner.
In my home.
No hurry, is there, UnitedFront? :rofl:
Till Wednesday for the bare bones but no transcript need be remitted till March 29th.
So that may be Ash Wednesday, then
Because I'll TRASH it by then, trust the Firestarter :target:

[UnitedFront]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Listen, all I want to know is the same thing that I've wanted to know for what seems now to be forever.

What part of the Magna Carta is relevant, and how? Surely you should know that much??

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Clauses still in force
The clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta still on statute are:

• Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process

[UnitedFront]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Christianpassy, your understanding of the law is phenomenally bad. You literally don't understand a thing about it.

You are just taking words and phrases that sound good and using them in completely the wrong way.

I suggest that you go away and learn what Art 29 Magna Carta actually means. Because you currently have no clue.

I'm not going to bother posting in this ridiculous thread any longer - but I shall be watching. [edited in hindsight to comply with forum rules] I will be actively watching the thread to see if, as I suspect, the case fails at the first hurdle.

If I were your landlord, I would probably also be seeking an eviction since the landlord/tenant relationship has clearly broken down completely.

The stupid thing is, that if you weren't so stuck up your own backside and so convinced of your own superiority, you could have probably put together a proper case, made up of real law properly applied, that might have actually been able to save your home. As it stands, you have no hope.

Let the countdown begin.

We will know if your case has failed if, at some point in the future, this thread falls silent without resolution.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

What part of the Magna Carta is relevant, and how?

It's not necessary, United - and thankyou.
This is covered by implied repeal:
HRA 1998 'conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner'.
It also both enlarges and diminishes the scope of...fundamental constitutional rights.
s21(4)(a) HA 1988 conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State, yes.
But it does not do so "in some 'general, overarching manner'"
It merely enlarges the human rights of landlords, and diminishes the human rights of tenants, in joined possession matters.

s21 HA 1998, then, merely adds information to the possessory rights in S II, Pt 1, Art 1, HRA 1998.
Therefore, HRA 1998 holds greater weight than s21(4)(a) HA 1988, as only it is 'overarching'.

There is no right to evict anyone without evaluation.
In my case, no evaluation has taken place, by express admission of DJ, as part of the judgement.
Currently being proof-read by the court-appointed transcribers, at public expense.

Landlord and tenant have joint possession of the property.
Ownership rights are diminished by the invitation to build a home within it, because of the balancing rights in HRA 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:mad2: I am currently thinking. It may go on till Monday.

[UnitedFront]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

There is no right to evict me without evaluation.

Okay, I know I said I wouldn't post in this thread again - but I have to make this last post.

YOUR LANDLORD HAS EVERY RIGHT TO EVICT YOU WITHOUT EVALUATION, OTHER THAN HIS EVALUATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTS TO EVICT YOU!! IT IS HIS (OR HER) HOUSE, NOT YOURS. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO STAY THERE. NONE. ZILCH. ZIP. YOU DON'T OWN THE HOUSE. IT'S NOT YOURS. IT IS YOUR LANDLORD'S.

You don't have a right to a home. Nobody does. If there was such a right, then the Government would have to house every single homeless person.

If you want the protection of Art 8 with regards to your housing - move into social housing.

It is people like you, abusing Human Rights Legislation, that creates such bad feeling towards these laws. They were designed to give people basic protection - they were not designed to enable leeching disgraces such as you to force your presence upon some poor unsuspecting private landlord who, quite rightly, wants shot of you.

You are utterly deluded [edited in hindsight to comply with forum rules] and I can quite understand how you have rubbed your landlord up the wrong way, so to speak. You are effectively trying to bully your landlord into letting you live somewhere that you have no right to be. I would be ashamed to be taking the steps which you deem acceptable and necessary.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

You deserve to be evicted - if I were your landlord I would be doing exactly the same thing

It was I who brought the case.
On.
We're all equals.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

IT IS HIS (OR HER) HOUSE, NOT YOURS. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO STAY THERE. NONE. ZILCH. ZIP. YOU DON'T OWN THE HOUSE. IT'S NOT YOURS. IT IS YOUR LANDLORD'S.

United, you're seeming possessed!
This isn't about ownership rights!
Any more than lifting a shop is about dishonesty!:Cry:
The landlord converted his own ownership rights some years ago, mate!
He gave me possession.
And I'm entitled to quiet enjoyment of my possessions.
His claim is for possession, but he already has control!
And ownership!
The problem here is in consistency!
(Implied repeal occurs where two statutes are mutually inconsistent. The effect is that the later statute repeals the earlier statute pro tanto (in so far as it is inconsistent).)
Try 14. Article 14, or 14 articles - it doesn't matter which.
(Prohibition of discrimnation among tenants).

[pt2537]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

For those wishing to know a tad about the Doctrine of Implied Repeal, i would suggest reading Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 Admin,

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

For those wishing to know a tad about the Doctrine of Implied Repeal, i would suggest reading Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 Admin,

#70:
"HRA 1998 'conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner'.
It also both enlarges and diminishes the scope of...fundamental constitutional rights.
s21(4)(a) HA 1988 conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State, yes.
But it does not do so "in some 'general, overarching manner'"
It merely enlarges the human rights of landlords, and diminishes the human rights of tenants, in joined possession matters.

s21 HA 1998, then, merely adds information to the possessory rights in S II, Pt 1, Art 1, HRA 1998.
Therefore, HRA 1998 holds greater weight than s21(4)(a) HA 1988, as only it is 'overarching'"

There may be more here...

"the later Act takes precedence...:
Pt I, article 8 and Pt II, article 1 take precedence over s21 (21)(4)(a) HA 1988.
Rights of tenant to respect for their home, and rights of each, to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions,
take precedence over
the 'right' to evict for no reason.

...and the conflicting parts of the earlier Act are repealed (i.e., no longer law)":
The 'right to evict for no reason' in s21 HA 1988 is no longer law.
Or "defunct", as I told DJ.

(As I said, UnitedFront: "time-wasting nonsense".
I believe that was 22 posts ago, mate.
#55 if I'm not mistaken).

[Celestine]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Thread cleared up.
Those who have grown exasperated just go and use your time more productively on other threads. Anyone who wants to stay on the thread and discuss please continue without insults, otherwise thread closure will result.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

This is a claim for possession of a property
It is not a claim for ownership of the property (Thankyou, UnitedFront)

So, what has to be balanced here, is:
Rights of tenant to respect for their home, and rights of each to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

Is he, and/or has he been, interfering with my right to respect for my home?
Yes. Repairs issues and unjustified threats to tenure; no response to complaints. Attempt to use s21 notice.
Is he, and/or has he been, interfering with my right to peaceful enjoyment of my possessions (tenure/belongings)?
Yes. Repairs issues and unjustified threats to tenure; no response to complaints. Attempt to use s21 notice.
Am I, and/or have I been, interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of his possession (control/ownership)?
That depends on my knowing what that would mean for him. Reasonableness test.

The standard is 'on balance of probabilities'.

He must show proportionality and legitimate aim in exercise of his possessory rights.
I had been told it was a 'long-term let', by agent.
After 30 ignored complaints, I withheld rent last June and July.
s8 notice (grounds applied) requiring possession was issued at end of July.
I informed agent in no uncertain terms I would counter claim.
s21 notice (no right of redress) was issued at the beginning of August.
The agent is a branch of 20 franchised offices, led by a franchising director.
When I contacted landlord direct to sort complaint in August, he first told me he wanted to sell.
Last November, after N5B (court-issued claim for possession under s21), I found a (landlord) buyer, who wanted to keep me on.
Buyer was told by agent it wasn't for sale - landlord wanted to put me out, do repairs, and put a new tenant in.
At defence hearing, landlord sent message to judge he wanted to sell.
I then wrote to landlord more than once by reg'd mail.
I explained I had found a buyer, but they were turned away by agent, last November.
I asked him how much he wanted for the property, offered increased rent until matter sorted, etc.
I have also asked him to resolve my complaint.
There has been no reply.
However, on last complaint made through agent, this times on human rights grounds, and
after repeated threats of forcible eviction from courts, of:
- severe interference with private life, business and home and 100s of hours' legal work -
Landlord took on some repairs with rent withheld still.

Presumably, then, I must show proportionality and legitimate aim in the exercise of mine.
I withheld rent after 30-odd ignored complaints.
I'm not moving out because I've got a home here.
I've been living here for 34 months.
There is no evidence landlord wants to sell.

Anyway, this may just be an intellectual exercise.
Possession has been awarded on the basis of s21 HA 1988.
The right to evict for no reason in which, is no longer the law - in my humble opinion.
Shelter, DDJ and DJ's opinions in this matter have not altered mine.
Then a couple of pieces of case law I have yet to examine, but used to 'justify' that my human rights didn't apply.
DJ did, however, ask me if I felt the landlord had 'any ownership rights at all?' (Thankyou, planb)
Note, this question referred to the landlord's human rights.
I advised DJ the landlord had the right to advertise the property to me, reference me, and accept me as a tenant.
I also advised DJ s21 was repealed and that I had read the meaning of that doctrine at Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says that parliament expressly orders judges to repeal the law.
[I further advised DJ at previous hardship hearing that I felt there were technical and public law defences.
He asked me why I thought I could bring a public law defence.
I replied "I read it".
He told me 4 times 'on and for the record' I would not succeed, because I was a private tenant.
Article 14: prohibition of discrimination on the basis of 'other' status].
Furthermore, there were no particulars of claim (Thankyou, my acting solicitor)

PART I - The Convention Rights and Freedoms
Article 8 -Right to respect for private and family life
1Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Part II - The First Protocol
Article 1 - Protection of property
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

[IanM]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

CP, lets get down to the bare bones of the case and look at it in all honesty.


I have thought about this for a while and read all the comments regarding this subject, including all the points of law that have been mentioned and have come to the conclusion that whether or not the court agrees with you the end result is always going to end up with you having to find somewhere else to live.

The Landlord 'OWNS' the house that you live in. You moved into the property in the condition it was in and then embarked on a campaign against your landlord and agent to have the repairs carried out, to which the landlord gave you the finger.

After many months of tolerating you and putting off the repairs that says to me that he was HOPING you would get sick of the conditions and leave of your own accord but alas he has rented to someone with issues.

Even if the court order the landlord to carry out the repairs the consequences may be that:

a) he has to sell the house to recover the money he has to spend to comply with the court and you get booted
b) he has the work done, increases the value of the property and decides to cash in and boots you out anyway
c) he gradually increases the rent until you cannot afford to pay it and you have to find somewhere cheaper to live


You will just have to face the facts, your landlord will never be happy with you as a tenant and he will take whatever steps are necessary to get you out of his house, whether he has to sell it to do that is something we will have to wait and see!

Arguing with members of the forum to try and justify your rights as only you understand them is not really going to get you anywhere so either listen to the advice you have been freely given or go to another forum and look for someone there that will massage your ego by agreeing with everything you say!