Family invokes Article 8 to resist eviction from UK retirement flat

A 59-year-old tenant and his wife and two young daughters are relying on human rights protections to resist eviction from a one-bedroom flat in a retirement development in Reading, as owners of the property seek possession on the grounds the accommodation is for people aged over 55.

Southern Housing, which owns the David Smith Court development, began possession proceedings after neighbours complained the children were causing excessive noise and misusing safety features. Court documents and filings in the case say the tenant, Shahidul Haque, moved into the sheltered accommodation in July after being made homeless and, following a spousal visa application in October, his wife, 28-year-old Jakia Sultana Monni, and their twin three-year-old daughters joined him on Dec. 20.

In a claims form filed by Southern Housing, solicitor Taiwo Temilade said Haque’s one-bedroom self-contained flat, for which he pays £110.70 per week, is designated for residents aged 55 and over. The form alleges the children had 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." Southern Housing held a meeting with Haque after neighbours complained and then issued the possession claim.

Haque’s legal team argues that evicting him and his family would breach his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. In a written defence, barrister Isabel Bertschinger said the tenancy terms were never explained to Haque in Sylheti nor translated into that language and that he has limited English. The defence also said Haque is disabled and in receipt of benefits, and that eviction would have a "serious and drastic impact" on his health and wellbeing.

Court documents list medical conditions including diabetes, obstructive sleep apnoea, hypertension and depression. The filings state Haque informed Southern Housing on Jan. 2 that his wife and children had recently arrived in the U.K. and had nowhere else to live, and that the local council had not offered alternative accommodation.

The defence notes the household’s immigration details are not set out in court papers: the children are described as British citizens while the wife is in the U.K. on a spousal visa. The tenant’s broader immigration status is not provided in the court documents.

At an earlier hearing on Aug. 4, Deputy District Judge Simon Lindsey declined to make an immediate possession order, saying there were "a number of issues" that needed resolving. The judge added: "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 listed for further hearing on Jan. 6 at Reading County Court. Southern Housing declined to comment.

The case has drawn criticism from some local politicians. Isobel Ballsdon, a Conservative councillor on Reading Borough Council, described the situation as "outrageous," saying specialist accommodation for older people was not suitable for young children and raising concerns about fairness for other groups in housing need.

The use of Article 8 in housing and immigration cases has been the subject of national debate. Attorney General Lord Hermer recently told the Lords Constitution Committee that the government was considering changes to how British courts interpret Article 8, saying some believe the provision has been used to frustrate deportation efforts. He said Strasbourg case law had become more permissive and that the U.K. needed to ensure domestic practice aligned with its priorities.

The possession claim and the defence centre on competing considerations: the rights of existing sheltered housing residents to peace and safety in an age-restricted scheme, and the tenant’s argument that removal would interfere disproportionately with his and his family’s private and family life. The court will be asked to weigh those factors when the matter returns to hearing in January.