Bristol squatters attempt 'proportionality' defence
inks | 11.10.2012 11:25
We were in court today for possession of our posh Clifton squat. We attempted to buy more time arguing possession forthwith would be disproportionate under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
We didn't succeed and possession was awarded forthwith but it wasn't entirely hopeless and could be something other squatters might try.
We didn't succeed and possession was awarded forthwith but it wasn't entirely hopeless and could be something other squatters might try.
We squatted 131 Pembroke Road, Clifton on 30 September. It's a £1.5 million posh office with Lloyds TSB as the leaseholder. They served papers on us last Wednesday with the court hearing today.
Before the hearing we approached their solicitor and attempted to negotiate an agreement to take into the court, based on us not opposing possession in exchange for the bank agreeing possession in 14 days. Their solicitor attempted to ring his office for instructions but was unable to get through to the right person.
In the hearing we made the following case:
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives everyone a right to their home. We argued it would be disproportionate to award possession forthwith because:
- there were nine people in the building so nine people's rights had to be considered
- we had caused no damage or disruption so there was no urgent need to evict
- Lloyds TSB were likely to leave the building empty until April 2013 when there's a break clause in the lease
The judge adjourned the hearing for a short while to enable the claimant's solicitor to again phone for instructions about allowing a 14 day order. I think if he'd been able to get through to the right person we might have swung it, the judge had given him a pretty clear idea of what she'd like.
However, the claimant's solicitor was again unable to get through and so returned to the court asking for possession forthwith. The judge stated on reflection if it was proportionate under the Human Rights Act to evict us it was also proportionate to evict forthwith and gave the order to the claimant.
So overall we didn't get anything from this attempt but it showed signs of being useful and we'll definitely try it again in a similar situation.
Before the hearing we approached their solicitor and attempted to negotiate an agreement to take into the court, based on us not opposing possession in exchange for the bank agreeing possession in 14 days. Their solicitor attempted to ring his office for instructions but was unable to get through to the right person.
In the hearing we made the following case:
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives everyone a right to their home. We argued it would be disproportionate to award possession forthwith because:
- there were nine people in the building so nine people's rights had to be considered
- we had caused no damage or disruption so there was no urgent need to evict
- Lloyds TSB were likely to leave the building empty until April 2013 when there's a break clause in the lease
The judge adjourned the hearing for a short while to enable the claimant's solicitor to again phone for instructions about allowing a 14 day order. I think if he'd been able to get through to the right person we might have swung it, the judge had given him a pretty clear idea of what she'd like.
However, the claimant's solicitor was again unable to get through and so returned to the court asking for possession forthwith. The judge stated on reflection if it was proportionate under the Human Rights Act to evict us it was also proportionate to evict forthwith and gave the order to the claimant.
So overall we didn't get anything from this attempt but it showed signs of being useful and we'll definitely try it again in a similar situation.
inks
Homepage:
http://goodforbristol.blogspot.com
Additions
Forgot to mention
11.10.2012 11:30
I forgot to mention this approach might work better against a council or other public landlord as they have to consider your Human Rights Act rights when making the decision to evict and whether to ask the court for possession forthwith.
inks
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
response
11.10.2012 15:55
the grow heathrow case at the court of appeal might be interesting in this regard, but i'll be surprised if they win
Barney
@barney
11.10.2012 17:04
The transition Heathrow thing is interesting - they're next in court on 23rd October - but overall won't make much difference even if they win. The Human Rights Act clearly does apply to public bodies, eg, council housing, at the moment and it hasn't stopped them evicting tenants or squatters.
inks
quick response
11.10.2012 23:25
yes i remember it well, we employed several rather flimsy arguments, another one of which actually gained us an adjournment of a few days, a small victory, since they had to go away and properly identify the property they intended to claim possession of.
i'm sorry i don't have time to get into this much further but the point that i was making was that article 8 defence only really holds water if you have been living somewhere for a substantial period of time. in our case (against a multinational venue owner) the judge simply said we hadn't been living there for long enough to establish rights. and we'd been there two weeks so that was a fairly reasonable thing to say (despite it depriving people of their home). i don't think the council being the owner (for example) necessarily makes much difference here (everyone has to consider your human rights).
two very useful links in case you don't know them already (both great legal blogs)
gosh here we are having an intelligent discussion in the comments section of indymedia. i thought those days had long gone!
Barney
@barney
12.10.2012 10:11
I thnk if like us you've got nothing better a proportionality defence is worth a try, even if you've been there a very short time. For our hearing the Judge didn't raise it as relevant and we'd been here less than a fortnight.
inks