The right not to be evicted for either a building or a piece of land may be rooted in human rights (each human has the right to live at least somewhere - especially if there is no reasonable alternative), customary rights (one may live in a certain area but the rights are not formally registered; yet there may be a legitimate claim for historical and/or traditional reasons) , the right to compensation (if one is expelled from a house or an area forcefully, then there should be at least some form of in-kind or in-cash compensation) and the right to the city and inclusion in planning (living is cities is getting increasingly expensive and exclusive for very rich minorities).
However, in practice, most of such anti-eviction rights are not very strong in the end. Very often eviction still takes place. I am therefore looking for examples of Acts and jurisprudence where anti-eviciton rights have been firmly established and practiced. I would also like to hear your opinion about whether such anti-eviction rights or Acts should exist in the first place.
I don't know if I'm correct, but I do distinguish between "eviction" a forcible reclaiming of property by the owner for violations of contractual requirements by tenants, and a "demand for vacation" of a property simply because the owner wants it back. The first can take place at any time. The second usually happens at the end of a contractual period because the owner does not wish to continue renting to the present tenant for whatever reasons s/he may have.
The first, I think aims to enable the owner to reassert their (property) rights when the tenant has failed to meet their obligations. Usually there's a legal process to go through to get proper permission for the eviction.
The second is a big problem these days in the UK. Tenants may wish to stay on but may not be allowed to. They have to vacate, find a new place, lose the value of any improvements they have made while in the property, and so on....They also depend on their current landlord for a reference from any new one, so can't complain too much.
This happened to my wife and I when well settled in a place we loved, had improved and planned to carry on there for many more years beyond th 6 years we had spent there. This led to us buying our own place some years later since we never felt secure again.
In the UK there are no rights involved except those of the property owner! S/he owes no explanation to the renter. This really hit the system around 2003, but was/is the final result of Thatcher's rental reform finally working through. It is now a constant worry for all renters and leads to much misery for people who can't afford to buy.
Christopher NOCK
I can't agree that UK law is adequate in the matter. It's not the cost of litigation that's the problem, its the fact that there's nothing to litigate in cases of demands for vacation. Yes, you can litigate against eviction, you can be heard at hearings, so it doesn't need to be expensive. But the owner will likely have a watertight case, not worth fighting in court. Cut your losses.
But in demands for vacation, there's nothing to fight. Your contract has ended, you were given the correct notice, you have nothing to complain about. That's short shrift after several years and the expectations that might raise. Before Thatcher tenants were far more secure. And it's a purely political matter: protect tenants in their homes, or allow owners in full control. I know which I consider fairer. Fortunately, public opinion is heading that way as well.
NOCK
Of course, if there's law, it's a matter of legal opinion! My point is that the law reflects and seeks to reinforce a political decision. And in this case, the political decision stinks. It is a right wing rat of a decision. So the law, whatever it says or however it's interpreted will protect the rat, and the wrong that it does.
NOCK
The UK government is now changing the rules for eviction to vacate. Landlords will now have to provide "good reason" for the eviction, which they may have to defend if challenged. A good improvement.
NOCK
Any specific details? - e.g. which regulation will change by when? How will 'good reason' be specified?
Another type of eviction can take place after the land or property is expropriated for a public purpose. In this case, the 'good reason'. The German constitution protects private property, yet also states that private property comes with a public responsibility. Expropriation is permitted if it serves a public benefit. In some cases, expropriation combined with evicted may lead to such societal costs that one has to view whether other solutons are possible.
A recent case of a request by a community in Berlin was to expropriate the owner of a public playground, who wanted to sell his land to investors and convert the playground to expensive housing. In such cases one could imagine that eviction / destruction of the playgorund sohld also be prevented.
I'm not a details man, I'm afraid! The BBC have reported it. Try their website.
NOCK
The government has been dealing with Section 21 of the Housing Act (1988).
NOCK
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning