Comments on: A Weaver v L&Q interlude. http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/03/a-weaver-v-lq-interlude/ Housing law news and comment Mon, 21 May 2012 14:36:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: NLhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/03/a-weaver-v-lq-interlude/#comment-2603 NL Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:27:29 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=1441#comment-2603 Vernon, you are right that losing the, albeit limited, protection of the Human Rights Act was and may be a component of stock transfers. But for clarity, 'legitimate expectation' is not a human rights category, it is a public law category. There is an overlap, as both public law and human rights challenges would require the 'authority' to be a public body or be carrying out a public function, but the definitions are not wholly the same for each. The level of public finance and public control/direction of RSLs was a key point in Weaver v L&Q at judicial review, and no doubt was at the Court of Appeal - we'll know soon. Your test case in waiting may well fall at first hurdle or turn out to be unnecessary, depending on the result of Weaver... Vernon, you are right that losing the, albeit limited, protection of the Human Rights Act was and may be a component of stock transfers. But for clarity, ‘legitimate expectation’ is not a human rights category, it is a public law category. There is an overlap, as both public law and human rights challenges would require the ‘authority’ to be a public body or be carrying out a public function, but the definitions are not wholly the same for each.

The level of public finance and public control/direction of RSLs was a key point in Weaver v L&Q at judicial review, and no doubt was at the Court of Appeal – we’ll know soon. Your test case in waiting may well fall at first hurdle or turn out to be unnecessary, depending on the result of Weaver…

]]> By: Vernon Yarkerhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/03/a-weaver-v-lq-interlude/#comment-2602 Vernon Yarker Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:06:07 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=1441#comment-2602 Little known about RSLs which were largely formed by LSVTs of council houses was that in the promotional literature they carefully and perhaps purposely left out that upon transfer tenants would have lost the right to challenge their new landlord under the Human Rights Act. This information must have been known by the authorities, especially as it was orchestrated by the ODPM now the DCLG. Quietly up to 2,000,000 residents of former council homes have had their human rights removed with not a whimper because they did not realise it. This in it self is, in my opinion, a calculated denial of their human rights ! The effect of this is apparent when one comes to rented Sheltered Housing located in RSLs. Current budgetary policies are resulting in site-specific Wardens being removed from Sheltered housing across the country. Although RSLs are supposed to hold consultations on this quite a few do not, and some of those that do have plainly made the decision already but hold the consultation to tick the box. In any event a consultation means precisely nothing if the RSL wishes to proceed regardless of what the residents have said. Effectively this has removed any rights by the residents to fight against this except under removal of ' legitimate expectations' which is a human rights category. If the present we have a case in waiting J Garbet -v- Circle 33 housing in which we first have to establish that RSLs are fulfilling a public function. Sheltered Housing UK Association believes that they are subject to Public Law because of the many rules, including the right to replace managements which are retained by the Government. Other aspects include the setting of rents by the Government, presently at inflation, plus half a percent, plus £2 per week for Rentrestructuring. In some cases, my own for example, the local council have preserved positions on the Board of the RSL . My own RSL,for example, shares its allocations of tenures with the council. The council hold the contract and the right to enforce it in default No other private companies are subject to such control, nor would they tolerate it. The indepth reason why these controls are in place is because a LSVT needs the vote of residents to opt into it and the Government has an interest in promoting LSVTs. However, residents of council houses were not unnaturally suspicious of what they saw was an attempt to privatise their houses and had to be placated with Government promises of controls over the RSL they were being asked to transfer to. The Government are stuck with this as much as the tenants are. The controls cannot be withdrawn now because that would appear to have been a trickery upon tenants of council houses to get them to vote for LSVT and then abandoning them afterwards to full privatisation. Little known about RSLs which were largely formed by LSVTs of council houses was that in the promotional literature they carefully and perhaps purposely left out that upon transfer tenants would have lost the right to challenge their new landlord under the Human Rights Act. This information must have been known by the authorities, especially as it was orchestrated by the ODPM now the DCLG. Quietly up to 2,000,000 residents of former council homes have had their human rights removed with not a whimper because they did not realise it. This in it self is, in my opinion, a calculated denial of their human rights !

The effect of this is apparent when one comes to rented Sheltered Housing located in RSLs. Current budgetary policies are resulting in site-specific Wardens being removed from Sheltered housing across the country. Although RSLs are supposed to hold consultations on this quite a few do not, and some of those that do have plainly made the decision already but hold the consultation to tick the box. In any event a consultation means precisely nothing if the RSL wishes to proceed regardless of what the residents have said.

Effectively this has removed any rights by the residents to fight against this except under removal of ‘ legitimate expectations’ which is a human rights category. If the present we have a case in waiting J Garbet -v- Circle 33 housing in which we first have to establish that RSLs are fulfilling a public function. Sheltered Housing UK Association believes that they are subject to Public Law because of the many rules, including the right to replace managements which are retained by the Government. Other aspects include the setting of rents by the Government, presently at inflation, plus half a percent, plus £2 per week for Rentrestructuring. In some cases, my own for example, the local council have preserved positions on the Board of the RSL .

My own RSL,for example, shares its allocations of tenures with the council.

The council hold the contract and the right to enforce it in default

No other private companies are subject to such control, nor would they tolerate it.

The indepth reason why these controls are in place is because a LSVT needs the vote of residents to opt into it and the Government has an interest in promoting LSVTs. However, residents of council houses were not unnaturally suspicious of what they saw was an attempt to privatise their houses and had to be placated with Government promises of controls over the RSL they were being asked to transfer to. The Government are stuck with this as much as the tenants are. The controls cannot be withdrawn now because that would appear to have been a trickery upon tenants of council houses to get them to vote for LSVT and then abandoning them afterwards to full privatisation.

]]>