Housing Act is Human Rights Compliance

Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donogue CA TLR 21 June 2001

The Court of Appeal rejected the contention that the mandatory requirement in section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988 that if the statutory conditions were satisfied the court must make an order for possession of the dwelling house let on a periodic assured shorthold tenancy contravenes a tenant’s right to family life and home. In considering whether the housing association could rely on article 8.2 of ECHR the court had to pay considerable attention to the fact that Parliament intended when enacting section 21(4) of the 1988 Act to give preference to the needs of those dependant on social housing as a whole over those in the position of the defendant. The economic and other implications of any policy in this area were extremely complex and far-reaching. This was an area where the courts had to treat the decisions of Parliament as to what was in the public interest with particular deference. Section 21(4) was certainly necessary in a democratic society insofar as there must be a procedure for recovering possession of property at the end of a tenancy. The question was whether the restricted power of the court was legitimate and proportionate. That was the area of policy where the court should defer to the decision of Parliament.