Migrant eviction case at Reading retirement block tests Article 8

A 59-year-old migrant from Bangladesh, Shahidul Haque, moved into David Smith Court, a retirement block in the suburbs of Reading, last July with his then-wife and their twin three-year-old daughters. The complex is divided into several three-storey blocks, including a retirement wing with a strict minimum age of 55 for residents and amenities such as a communal lounge, dining area, laundry, hairdressing salon and gardens. The development’s quiet, elder-focused atmosphere has long been a hallmark of the site, where many residents are in their 70s, 80s or 90s. The arrival of Haque and his family has, in the eyes of many residents, disrupted that balance and sparked a broader debate about housing, rules, and the reach of human rights law in everyday life.

Five months after Haque moved in, his second wife, 28-year-old Jakia Sultana Monni, and their twin daughters joined him in the one-bedroom flat. The tenancy agreement at David Smith Court carries an explicit age restriction and a clause prohibiting overcrowding, with a warning that more than the stated number of occupants may breach the terms. Residents say the arrival of a young family in a retirement flat transformed corridors into playgrounds, turned the corridors into busier spaces, and led to what many describe as persistent noise and disruptive behavior. A number of residents said the situation degraded the calm they had come to expect in the building.

Landlords Southern Housing, which owns the site, asked the Haque family to leave, saying they had become a source of excess noise and anti-social behavior negatively affecting other residents. Haque refused to vacate immediately, reportedly awaiting a suitable alternative arrangement, and the case has since moved to court for eviction proceedings. The management’s position is that the family’s presence breaches the tenancy terms not only because of age restrictions and occupancy limits but also due to ongoing disturbances that residents say have become a near-daily issue. The Haque family has indicated they will contest eviction, citing a potential breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—protecting the right to respect for family life—in their legal argument.

A lawyer for Haque, Isabel Bertschinger of One Pump Court, argued in a written statement that the tenancy terms may not have been clearly explained to Haque, who is Sylheti-speaking and relies on interpreters for complex legal documents. The filing notes that, while the Home Office requires applicants to meet detailed criteria for family sponsorship and residency, the same level of clarity may not have been provided at the tenancy level, contributing to a dispute over whether the family understood the rules when they moved in.

The landlord’s position has drawn sharp attention from local officials and residents. Councillor Isobel Ballsdon, a Conservative representative, said the case raises questions about fairness and whether some residents may be advantaged by the legal process. She noted Haque’s ability to finance international travel to Bangladesh and queried how a family with limited English proficiency could fully grasp tenancy obligations. In her view, the case reflects the broader tension between housing policy, immigration policy, and local expectations about fairness for long-term residents.

Haque has a documented history in the United Kingdom dating back to 1997, when he began working in the hospitality industry in east London. He has since had multiple marriages and, according to the record, a large extended family back in Bangladesh. After a period of homelessness following a divorce, he obtained social housing in London before relocating to Berkshire. The family’s present legal challenge comes amid widespread concern about housing pressures in Reading, where official figures show the number of homeless people in the town rose by about 18% in the first quarter of 2025. By the end of March, around 402 households were in temporary accommodation, nearly three-quarters of them with children (approximately 299 households).

Residents in the retirement wing, while sympathetic to Haque’s children, spoke of the daily disruption and the risk posed to an elderly population. Derek Cox, 77, a former mechanic living in one of the studio flats, described hearing the twins’ screams at night and facing periods when it was difficult to access the building’s lift. He acknowledged empathy for the children but argued that the community’s rules should ensure a peaceful living environment for all residents. Tricia Hawkes, 86, uses a wheelchair and has lived in the block for a decade, saying that while she understands the children’s needs, the block requires careful balance so older residents can navigate communal spaces safely. Other residents voiced frustration at what they saw as unequal enforcement of the rules, expressing concern about who funds the legal representation in high-profile disputes.

The case has also drawn attention to the broader political and legal context surrounding the European Court of Human Rights and its role in housing and immigration cases. Proponents of stronger enforcement argue that Article 8 protections have at times been used to stall deportations or family separations, while critics say the provision ensures that family life is not unnecessarily uprooted in the interest of expediency. The government has signaled a renewed focus on limiting alleged abuses of the ECHR, but legal experts caution that balancing human rights protections with housing policy will continue to be a contentious issue as broader migration and housing pressures persist.

The Haque matter is unfolding at a time when local authorities in Reading are grappling with a growing demand for affordable housing and the pressure of accommodating vulnerable families within an aging housing stock. The county court in Reading will determine whether eviction is lawful under the terms of the tenancy and whether any rights under Article 8 warrant continued residence. In the meantime, residents in the retirement block remain divided: some acknowledge the need to protect a peaceful living environment for elderly residents, while others express concern for Haque’s children and the potential implications for a family facing eviction in a community already under strain. The ongoing dispute thus lies at the intersection of housing policy, immigration law, and the persistent question of how to balance rights with community stability in a town navigating significant change.