Legal Loophole Blocks Migrant’s Retirement Home Eviction

A benefits-claiming migrant has sparked widespread fury after exploiting a human rights loophole to block his eviction from a British retirement home.

Shahidul Haque, 59, argued he didn’t realise his 28-year-old wife and two children weren’t allowed to live in the over-55s home—claiming his poor English meant he couldn’t understand the tenancy agreement.

After becoming homeless in July, the 59-year-old moved into David Smith Court, a retirement complex in Reading.

Mr Haque, who is disabled and living on benefits, brought his family to join him at the property on December 20 after successfully applying for their move to Britain.

The retirement homes owners launched eviction proceedings against the 59-year-old and his family following multiple complaints about “excess noise levels and anti-social behaviour”.

However, Mr Haque’s lawyers argued that evicting him would violate his civil liberties under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to a family life.

Reading Councillor Raj Singh told GB News that the lawyers’ human rights claim was “bonkers”, dismissing the argument as completely absurd.

Cllr Isobel Ballsdon also condemned what she called the “outrageous” situation.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, the Conservative councillor said, “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.”

Southern Housings solicitor, Taiwo Temilade, revealed that the one-bedroom flat costs Mr Haque £110.70 per week to rent and is specifically reserved for residents aged 55 and over.

According to the claims form, 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 pull cord) and generally rambunctious behaviour.”

After Southern Housing officers met the 59-year-old tenant and flagged the tenancy breach, the provider took the case to county court to reclaim the flat.

Isabel Bertschinger, representing Mr Haque, argued, “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 highlighted that the 59-year-old is disabled and receives benefits after being diagnosed with depression, diabetes, and obstructive sleep apnoea.

Ms Bertschinger stated, “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 and 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 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 rejected Southern Housing’s attempt to reclaim the flat, 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.”

The case is set to return to Reading County Court for a hearing on January 6.