First, theere was only a violation because the procedural requirements of proportionality hadn’t been considered. They didn’t actually say that the eviction would be disproportionate. Nor is it clear that it would be. At para 131 they note that “Article 8 does not impose on Contracting States an obligation to tolerate unlawful land occupation indefinitely.”

Second, they draw a distinction between this case – where a whole community is being evicted from land they have occupied for 40 years – “from routine cases of removal of an individual from unlawfully occupied property” [121]. In this country such circumstances are going to be rare (albeit not unheard of; I’d be interested to have known what Strasbourg thought of Dale Farm).

Third, what they say at [129] is subsequently qualified at [131] by saying:

“Article 8 does not in terms give a right to be provided with a home (see, Chapman, cited above, § 99) and, accordingly, any positive obligation to house the homeless must be limited (see O’Rourke v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39022/97, ECHR 26 June 2001). However, an obligation to secure shelter to particularly vulnerable individuals may flow from Article 8 of the Convention in exceptional cases”.

The positive obligation under Article 8 is an incredibly high hurdle to cross and the courts have repeatedly held that it is unlikely to be crossed unless you are close to a breach of article 3.

Thus, I don’t think this case is as of much assistance as it may first a ppear.

As judical comments go that is hilarious.

Ouch!!!! but fair comment

Liability for the defect doesn’t arise until the expiry of ‘a reasonable time’, so there is the argument that that is when the clock starts ticking on damages. The tenant would have had to live with the defect for that period anyway. Damages then run until works completed.

On the other hand, the landlord’s failure to do anything in the ‘reasonable time’ could be a basis for arguing liability for damages runs from day 1, as the time taken for repairs is still to come. On this view damages would then run until works are arranged (if not carried out)

It comes to the same period overall, though.

If it is any help, I also went to state school, am very far from rich and don’t know any of ‘the right people’.

And, as I would hope would be clear, I am sure that there are many students who will make excellent lawyers. Just probably not the ones who want us to write their essays for them.

We’re going to ask for a 50% reduction but I’m not sure whether this should apply after a reasonable time (14 days at this time of year?) has elapsed, or from day 1 of the problem.

If anyone has any thoughts on this I would be very interested in hearing your views.

Thanks

Richard

But the LVT hasn’t stopped landlords not putting their address on rent demands. S.47 says they must, but there is no penalty. It is only service charges that aren’t due unless the address is included. Rent is still due.