Evictions from Sites
The 1994 Act removed the duty on certain local authorities to provide sites (whilst retaining the power to do so (1)). Since the implementation of the 1994 Act, the shortage of suitable accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers has been exacerbated by the closure of many sites and the reduction in numbers of pitches on some of those sites that remain open by many local authorities.
GOLDEN RULE: Time is of the essence! Contact either FFT or TAT or whoever it is you want to use as soon as you receive notice of an eviction.
If you leave it until the night before the police or bailiffs are due to turn up to contact someone, dont expect much of a result.
Residents on official sites (2) are often referred to as ‘licensees’ but can be called ‘tenants’. Regardless of this they enjoy negligible security of tenure. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 provides that, with regard to ‘protected sites’ (3), any notice to quit must be of not less than four weeks duration (4) and possession can only be obtained with a court order. However, this is the extent of ‘security’. Unlike the case where a local authority seeks possession of conventional housing rented to a secure council tenant there is no requirement of ‘reasonableness’ before a possession order is granted (5).
In two cases Gypsies and Travellers have challenged the lack of security of tenure provided by the relevant legislation on the basis that it is discriminatory and incompatible with the HRA. In the first, Somerset County Council v Isaacs (6), comparison was made with the Mobile Homes Act 1983. In the second, R (Albert Smith) v LB of Barking & Dagenham (7), comparison was made with the regime for council tenants in conventional housing under the Housing Act 1985. In both cases the courts rejected the arguments of the Gypsies and Travellers, accepting the Government’s position that the introduction of security of tenure would undermine the nomadic lifestyle of the residents and non-nomadic people might take up pitches on sites. Advisers continue to doubt the validity of this reasoning and it is hoped that a further challenge to this discriminatory position might be possible in the future.
Problems of disrepair on sites might be susceptible to action as a statutory nuisance (8). Alternatively, though having less obvious protection than council and other tenants in conventional housing, it may be possible for residents to take county court action either by relying on the terms of the licence agreement or possibly on implied terms. Unfortunately, many residents are put off from taking action by their lack of security of tenure and their fear that they may be evicted.
**********
Footnotes:
1. Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (the ‘CSCDA’), s.24.
2. Note that this does not include mobile home owners who live on licensed sites covered by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and who enjoy much better security of tenure.
3. 1968 Act s.1 defines ‘protected sites’ as sites that require a licence under Part 1 of the CSCDA
4. 1968 Act, s.2.
5. See Housing Act 1985
6. (2002) EWHC 1014 Admin.
7. (2003) EWCA Civ 385.
8. Environmental Protection Act 1990, s.82.
By Chris Johnson, Angus Murdoch and Marc Willers, July ‘04
Chris Johnson and Angus Murdoch are practising solicitors and members of the Travellers Advice Team based at Community Law Partnership solicitors in Birmingham. Marc Willers is a barrister practising in Chambers at 2 Garden Court, Temple, London
convert this post to pdf.
