Shahidul Haque, 59, claimed he did not speak enough English to comprehend his tenancy agreement.
After being made homeless in July, the 59-year-old moved in to David Smith Court in Reading (Image: Google)
A migrant living on benefits in a British retirement home has evaded eviction after his lawyers used European human rights legislation to defeat a legal challenge to remove him. Shahidul Haque, 59, said he did not know his 28-year-old wife and two young children could not move into his flat, reserved for over-55s, because he could not understand his tenancy agreement.
After being made homeless in July, the man moved into David Smith Court in Reading. On December 20, his young family joined him after they got clearance to move to Britain.
Cllr Isobel Ballsdon from Reading Borough Council lambasted the ‘outrageous’ situation (Image: Facebook)
Following complaints about “excess noise levels and anti-social behaviour”, the owners of the retirement home began legal proceedings to remove Mr Haque.
But lawyers for the disabled dad claimed that removing him and his family would contravene Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which upholds the right to a family life.
Taiwo Temilade, representing Southern Housing, revealed the one-bedroom flat costs Mr Haque £110.70 per week in rent and is reserved for those aged 55 and older.
Mr Temilade wrote: “The Defendant’s two young children who reside with him have become a source of excess noise levels and anti-social behaviour, negatively affecting other residents within the estate through misuse of safety features (emergency pullcord) and generally rambunctious behaviour.”
Reading County Court (Image: Google)
However, after the matter went to court, Isabel Bertschinger, defending Mr Haque, said: “It is averred that the Terms and Conditions of the tenancy agreement were never explained to the Defendant via a Sylheti interpreter or translated into Sylheti in a written document such that the Defendant could understand them.”
The lawyer also made reference to the man’s disabilities and benefits eligibility, following his diagnoses of depression, diabetes and obstructive sleep apnoea.
Ms Bertschinger said: “Disabled tenants are more likely to struggle to manage anti-social behaviour by others who live or visit their home.
“The Claimant’s decisions to institute, pursue continue to seek possession of the property are incompatible with the Defendant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and possession would constitute a disproportionate interference therewith.
“He is disabled and has limited English language skills, and that he is in receipt of benefits and therefore has a low income.
“His wife and children have only recently arrived in the UK and would be particularly vulnerable if made homeless.
“To evict him from his home would have a serious and drastic impact on the Defendant’s health and wellbeing and therefore on his private life, and to prevent him from living with his wife and children would have a severe and disproportionate impact on his family life.”
Judge Simon Lindsey denied Southern Housing’s possession order, saying: “Fundamentally, I think the defendant probably should not be in this property with his wife and two children, but the question of how he came to be in this place appears to be unresolved and we have to get to that another time.”
Reading Councillor Raj Singh said the decision was “bonkers” in an interview with GB News. Conservative Cllr Isobel Ballsdon also blasted the “outrageous” situation.
The Conservative councillor told the Daily Mail: “It seems this person is gaming the system.
“Accommodation for people who are retired is not going to be suitable for children.
“It’s also a question of fairness – we have veterans who are homeless.”
The case is scheduled to be heard at Reading County Court on January 6.
