Right To Buy HA legal challenge

[poppet2]

It looks like an unworkable Tory policy before it even begins. Another off the hoof Tory policy that wasn't thought out properly.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/housing-associations-say-theyll-sue-if-the-tories-force-them-to-sell-off-homes-under-right-to-buy-10175492.html

[the_bloke]

Not sure on the grounds they want to sue to be honest.

 

The article states that the HA will sue them for breaking Article 1 of the Human Rights Act:

 

'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.'

 

I'm not a legal expert, but I see no grounds they can sue; the HA is putting itself forward as a person and using the act to try say that the HA is having it's rights breached, when in reality the human involved in the tenant. We shall see as time goes on.

[psynuk]

you don't have to be human to be a person.

[I1L2T3]

One of the first things the Tories will try and do is repeal the Human Rights Act. They've been talking about doing it for years. If they succeed the basis of the legal challenge is gone.

[poppet2]

Not sure on the grounds they want to sue to be honest.

 

Well for a start, HA properties belong to private companies, the majority are charities. Who are the government to strip them off their assists?

 

Why should HAs bother to build in future if tenants are offered RTB and they are flogged off at a heavy discount?

 

HAs may just as well build and sell privately for a profit like every other property developer.

[andyofborg]

One of the first things the Tories will try and do is repeal the Human Rights Act. They've been talking about doing it for years. If they succeed the basis of the legal challenge is gone.

 

except it wouldn't have

 

repealing the human rights act would only remove the right of people to seek redress through the uk courts, going to the EUCHR would still be an option.

 

we could, of course, walk away from the european convention on human rights but that would cause many other issues which we've explored on many other threads.

 

given that tory policy is to have a "bill of rights", which according to them will enumerate the same rights as the european convention then the basis would still exist.

 

anyway, back to the main point of the thread, housing associations are private organisations not in any way related or controlled by the state. so effectively the state is siezing the assets of private individuals and organisations, something we should all be worried about.

[The Joker]

. . .anyway, back to the main point of the thread, housing associations are private organisations not in any way related or controlled by the state. so effectively the state is siezing the assets of private individuals and organisations, something we should all be worried about

 

^^^^^^^^^^

This.

 

How would private landlords react if the Tories were to force them to sell their properties off to their tenants at a huge discount?

[loraward]

Not sure on the grounds they want to sue to be honest.

 

The article states that the HA will sue them for breaking Article 1 of the Human Rights Act:

 

'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.'

 

I'm not a legal expert, but I see no grounds they can sue; the HA is putting itself forward as a person and using the act to try say that the HA is having it's rights breached, when in reality the human involved in the tenant. We shall see as time goes on.

 

I agree, its also worth noting that housing associations build houses using government/tax payers money.

 

Ministers today (24 July, 2013) announced a multi-million pound boost to build thousands of new affordable homes across the country.

 

Sixty-nine different housing associations and developers will each receive a share of £220 million to deliver almost 14,000 new affordable homes outside London.

Edited May 8, 2015 by loraward

[the_bloke]

Well for a start, HA properties belong to private companies, the majority are charities. Who are the government to strip them off their assists?

 

Why should HAs bother to build in future if tenants are offered RTB and they are flogged off at a heavy discount?

 

HAs may just as well build and sell privately for a profit like every other property developer.

 

That wasn't my point. The newspaper article you linked states that the HAs are considering a legal challenge, arguing it's in contravention of the Human Rights act, to which I wondered if that was the correct legal recourse.

 

Depends how you look at it; you see it as the Government stripping HAs of assets, other people see it as tenants having the option of buying the home they live in. Everyone is quick to bash RTB apart from those very people who have exercised their right to do so to improve their quality of life.

[andyofborg]

I agree, its also worth noting that housing associations build houses using government/tax payers money.

 

so? the money was freely given by the government of the day on the assumption that the houses would be built for rental and remain so

 

they also borrow money from the open market using the buildings and future rent as collateral. that will become harder/more expensive if these assets can be sold off at cameron's whim.