In 2020 the court rules were changed to require that all residential tenants must be given 14 days’ notice of an eviction. What happens though if the eviction is cancelled on the day?
The Court of Appeal has delivered its verdict on a High Court decision that, until now, had held that the Right to Rent scheme was discriminatory and in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). You can read our update on the High Court’s 1 March 2019 judgment in our ebriefing.
The Right to Rent scheme prohibits landlords in the private rented sector from letting properties to prospective tenants who do not have leave to remain in England or a ‘right to rent’. This applies to private registered providers of social housing where they are allocating outside any nomination from a local authority under the Housing Act 1996.
The High Court heard that, as a result of the scheme, and faced with criminal sanctions for failure to comply with it, many private landlords had requested to see a British passport as a condition of granting a tenancy in order to evidence a right to rent.
An independent body, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which advocates for the rights of migrants brought a claim that contended that, in a number of cases, this had the effect of discriminating against foreign nationals who were subject to requests to provide a British passport. The High Court heard that applicants who were unable to produce British passports, and those without ethnically ‘British’ attributes, such as name, were subject to discrimination by some landlords.
The charity argued that this breached the ECHR. Specifically, it contended that the scheme breached the Article 14 right not to be subject to discrimination on the grounds of certain characteristics, particularly when viewed alongside the Article 8 right to a private home life. The High Court agreed, ruling that the Right to Rent scheme was discriminatory.
Court of Appeal decision
Following an appeal by the Secretary of State, the case passed to the Court of Appeal, which has now given its judgment in the case. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge in the earlier judgment: prospective tenants who did indeed have the right to rent, but who did not have a British passport, had been subject to discrimination by their landlords. This discrimination, on the basis of the applicants’ actual or perceived nationality, would not have occurred were it not for the Right to Rent scheme.
However, the Court highlighted that, on the whole, the scheme could be, and often was, effectively implemented by private landlords without using discriminatory measures such as demanding a British passport.
Crucially, the Court of Appeal focused on the legislative objective of the Right to Rent scheme: to discourage certain patterns of unlawful immigration. Taking into account that the scheme could be implemented without discrimination, the Court of Appeal decided that the scheme was a proportionate means of achieving its objective. In other words, discrimination resulting from the Right to Rent scheme can be justified, given the political objectives of the legislation.
For English landlords, the decision is unlikely to have an impact in practice, as the Government had asked landlords to continue to comply with the scheme despite the High Court decision. However, following the Court of Appeal’s landmark ruling, the Right to Rent scheme, which currently only applies in England, is likely to be rolled out to the remaining devolved administrations across the United Kingdom.
It remains to be seen whether a final appeal to the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court, could follow, given the public importance of such a decision. However, until such time, the Court of Appeal’s decision, and the applicability of the Right to Rent scheme, stands.
If you have any questions about this judgment, or how the Right to Rent scheme affects your organisation, please get in touch with Emma Hardman.
 R (on the application of Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Residential Landlords Association and others intervening)  EWCA Civ 542
We are delighted to announce that our private wealth law department has continued to maintain its Band 2 position in the latest edition of Chambers and Partners High Net Worth.
The new CHF is set to launch and open for applications with £4 million set to be allocated to community-led housing groups to support an increase the supply of affordable housing in England.
Charities, like other organisations, may be subject to or choose to voluntarily comply with the reporting requirements under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
The draft regulations making it mandatory for anyone entering a registered care home in England to have been double vaccinated unless they are clinically exempt were made on 22 July 2021.
In the Transforming Public Procurement Green Paper, the Government signalled its desire to increase its control over procurements by all contracting authorities.
The monthly round-up from the Anthony Collins Solicitors charities team.
Legal updates as the UK enters into stage 4 of the roadmap and legal restrictions on face coverings and social distancing are lifted.
The first disability we are going to discuss is diabetes. We begin by discussing the different types of diabetes; their similarities and differences and how we live with the disability within our day.
Tim Coolican and Freya Cassia explore the legal and practical options available to providers if a disappointing result is received following an inspection.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.