The Vulnerable Adults Act 2006 where section 59 (9) (b) asserts “he has any form of disability”

The Vulnerable Adults Act 2006 where section 59 (9) (c) refers to “has a physical or mental problem”

Section 26(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 sets out the following:

“Any term in a contract for the provision of goods, facilities or services or in any other agreement is void so far as it purports to -

(a) Require a person to do anything which would contravene any provision of, or made under, this Part,

(b) Exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Part, or

(c) Prevent any person from making a claim under this Part.

Please interpret that.

The provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in relation to premises are set out crystal clearly.

Take the DDA 1995 for example.

____________________________________
Discrimination in relation to premises

Premises Part III

22.-(3) It is unlawful for a person managing any premises to discriminate against a disabled person occupying those premises -

(a) in the way he permits the disabled person to make use of any benefits or facilities;

(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to permit the disabled person to make use of any benefits or facilities; or

(c) by evicting the disabled person, or subjecting him to any other detriment.
________________________________________

Therefore as you can see, the landlord is imposed upon by way of an ACT OF PARLIAMENT to adhere to the social consequences of permanently housing disabled people.

A fortiori,

26.-(1) Any term in a contract for the provision of goods, facilities or services or in any other agreement is void so far as it purports to -

(a) Require a person to do anything which would contravene any provision of, or made under, this Part, [Part III of the DDA 1995]

If a landlord seeks to evict a disabled person the clause in the tenancy agreement automatically becomnes void.

The word Void as Void means Void. There is no derrogation to this rule.

The message is clear.

“Don’t rent out houses to people if you don’t want to be burdened by the social consequences of people living in those houses to whom you rent out those houses to”.

People are people.

people are not property.

People have intrinsic, individual and specific needs. Anyone who does not recognise this fact does not have a right to exist in business.

There are issues of public importance in relation to this case for it addresses matters which amount to organised oppression and inequity in the social housing sector perpetrated by a local authority.

How can the Housing Act of 1985 and the Housing Act of 1988 which has been interpreted by landlords and the courts as giving landlords mandatory grounds in law to physically evict tenants from their homes onto the street irrespective of disability and purport to circumvent the following:

(i) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), article 17(1) “everyone has the right to own property alone or in association with others”.

(ii) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 17(2) “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”.

(iii) The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (unlawfulness of evicting disabled tenants)

(iv) The Human Rights Act 1998 (right to a home)

(v) Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (right to property)

(vi) The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (where social housing tenancy agreements were included in 2004 by the Court of Appeal)

(vii) The prohibition of discrimination under Directive 2000/43/EC (social housing included)

(viii) The Mental Incapacity Act 2005

(ix) The Vulnerable Adults Act 2006

Intention to Permanently house persons in a criteria of vulnerability

The genesis of a local authorities’ and a housing association’s intention of permanently housing disabled and vulnerable groups are such that as a housing provider, the local authority was/is aware [fixed with knowledge] that the person who is permanently housed is vulnerable and/or disabled and/or on no or low income.

(i) Therefore awareness of social problems binds responsibility on the social housing provider.

(ii) That the social landlord’s invitation of permanently housing persons of vulnerability and/or disability and/or of other related social problems inherently attract social consequences in that by knowingly housing vulnerable persons, a landlord cannot divorce himself of the social problems and/or any social consequences accrued through the permanent housing of vulnerable groups by evicting vulnerable people from their homes onto the street like dogs in an effort of the social housing provider to rid itself of the burden brought by housing individuals of necessitous circumstances in the first instance.

(iii) That; it would be duplicitous conduct for a social housing provider to divorce itself of social consequences that generate from the needs of vulnerable people and their evidential lack of money and resources which are the core foundations of permanently housing persons in necessitous circumstances from the outset.

The Landlord’s social responsibility for housing vulnerable people in Social housing is bound by the landlord’s knowledge of disability in the first instance and the landlord must meet with social consequences imposed upon the landlord. Those social consequences accrue from the constellation of needs of vulnerable people housed in social housing and these needs bind responsibility on the social landlord.

Social landlords providing social housing to social tenants attract social consequences.

There can be no escape for the landlord and his liability and/or responsibility exists because the doctrine of strict liability and vicarious liability is a liability designed specifically and precisely for this kind of circumstance where a disabled tenant has needs which a landlord cannot ignore.