Section: Travellers and Gypsies

Hostel Housing Questioned

Mr Maughan and his family were travellers who were unlawfully occupying land owned by Leicester City Council.

The Council commenced possession action and Mr Maughan made an application to the Council for housing assistance. The Council offered temporary hostel accommodation pending a decision on the application for housing.

The Council went ahead with the possession action and Mr Maughan applied for a Judicial Review. He argued that:

The Council should have delayed the possession action while the application for housing assistance was being considered.
If the Council decided that he was homelessness and had a statutory right to housing assistance, its duty could best be met by leaving him on the land that was subject of the possession action.
As a gypsy, conventional housing was not culturally acceptable to him and the temporary hostel accommodation could not be regarded as suitable housing.

In dismissing the claim, the Judge ruled that:

The Council was entitled to treat Mr Maughan's homelessness application and the possession claim as separate issues.
It was incorrect to assume that the decision as regards the application for housing assistance would influence the possession action.
As Mr Maughan had recently lived in council housing, it was not acceptable to argue that the hostel accommodation was culturally unacceptable because it was conventional housing. The Judge also noted that there was no ruling that conventional housing cannot be considered suitable temporary accommodation for a gypsy.

Maughan v Leicester CC

Gypsies Have Same Rights as Tenants

A landmark ruling in the European Court of Human Rights gave gypsies the same rights as council housing tenants to defend themselves against the threat of eviction.

A panel of seven judges ruled that Leeds Council had abused the human rights of a gypsy family by evicting them from a plot of land that they had occupied for 13 years. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Strasbourg court also directed that there was a positive obligation on the UK Government to facilitate the gypsy way of life.

The family were licensed to occupy a plot at the site provided they, their family, and guests did not cause a nuisance. There was subsequently an incident and a Notice to Quit was served on the family.

The Court concluded that eviction was the wrong action to take and it had rendered the gypsy family homeless, with adverse consequences on their security and well-being. The summary of the judgement also directed that the vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority meant that some special consideration had to be given to their needs and to their different lifestyle.

Connors v The United Kingdom

Section: Travellers and Gypsies

Hostel Housing Questioned

Gypsies Have Same Rights as Tenants

Legal Update

Reporting on April-June 2004

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods