Groundwork to be done before applying the Human Rights Act 1998
Regardless of any human rights issue, disputes arising between the occupier of a mobile home and the owner of the site on which it stands cannot be addressed without seeing how the situation fits into the bigger picture. Leaving aside instances of trespass from the outset (as to which see
1. Holiday sites and sites only available for occupation during certain periods of the year: These are excluded from the legislation mentioned below.
2. “Protected sites” within the Caravan Sites Act 1968: Most residential occupiers enjoy, regardless of who owns the caravan, the limited protection of the 1968 Act, which requires the site owner to give four weeks’ written notice to quit and, perhaps more importantly, gives the court power to suspend the enforcement of an eviction order for periods of up to 12 months. However, by section 4(6), that power cannot be used where eviction proceedings are brought by a local authority (the CSA exclusion).
3. Occupier enjoying enlarged security under the Mobile Homes Act 1983: A security not too far removed from that enjoyed by an assured tenant is enjoyed by a person who stations his own caravan on an authorised site for occupation as his only or main residence. However, section 5(1) of the 1983 Act excludes from its operation any land occupied by a local authority “as a caravan site providing accommodation for gypsies” (the MHA exclusion).
Application of Human Rights Act 1998
As regards local authority sites, it has been held that neither the CSA nor the MHA exclusion can be branded as incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention (respect for the home): see the decision of Burnton J in Isaacs v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWHC 1014 Admin; [2002] 25 EG 151 (CS), who went on to hold that the MHA (gypsy site) exclusion did not offend against the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 14.
The upholding of these exclusions does not, it need hardly be said, mean that local authorities can turn their backs on human rights when deciding whether to take eviction proceedings. A decision shown to be made in disregard of the Convention would undoubtedly be open to judicial review.
Groundwork to be done before applying the Human Rights Act 1998
Regardless of any human rights issue, disputes arising between the occupier of a mobile home and the owner of the site on which it stands cannot be addressed without seeing how the situation fits into the bigger picture. Leaving aside instances of trespass from the outset (as to which see The travel bug” Estates Gazette 6 July 2002, p136), it is suggested that such situations can be conveniently categorised as follows:
1. Holiday sites and sites only available for occupation during certain periods of the year: These are excluded from the legislation mentioned below.
2. “Protected sites” within the Caravan Sites Act 1968: Most residential occupiers enjoy, regardless of who owns the caravan, the limited protection of the 1968 Act, which requires the site owner to give four weeks’ written notice to quit and, perhaps more importantly, gives the court power to suspend the enforcement of an eviction order for periods of up to 12 months. However, by section 4(6), that power cannot be used where eviction proceedings are brought by a local authority (the CSA exclusion).
3. Occupier enjoying enlarged security under the Mobile Homes Act 1983: A security not too far removed from that enjoyed by an assured tenant is enjoyed by a person who stations his own caravan on an authorised site for occupation as his only or main residence. However, section 5(1) of the 1983 Act excludes from its operation any land occupied by a local authority “as a caravan site providing accommodation for gypsies” (the MHA exclusion).
Application of Human Rights Act 1998
As regards local authority sites, it has been held that neither the CSA nor the MHA exclusion can be branded as incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention (respect for the home): see the decision of Burnton J in Isaacs v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWHC 1014 Admin; [2002] 25 EG 151 (CS), who went on to hold that the MHA (gypsy site) exclusion did not offend against the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 14.
The upholding of these exclusions does not, it need hardly be said, mean that local authorities can turn their backs on human rights when deciding whether to take eviction proceedings. A decision shown to be made in disregard of the Convention would undoubtedly be open to judicial review.
