Migrant family fights eviction from retirement block, invoking human-rights claim

A dispute in a Reading retirement housing block has brought into focus the way immigration, housing policy and legal rights intersect in Britain. Shahidul Haque, 59, a migrant from Bangladesh, is contesting eviction from David Smith Court on grounds that removing his family would breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects an individual’s right to family life. The eviction bid has drawn attention to the broader pressures facing the welfare state and the way residents and local authorities grapple with complex legal arguments in a tight housing market.

David Smith Court is a five-block complex of red brick housing in a suburban area near Reading, with a dedicated retirement wing that includes communal lounges, a dining area, a laundry, a hairdressing salon and shared gardens. The retirement units range from studios to one-bedroom flats. The tenancy policy requires applicants to be at least 55, reflecting the block’s mission to provide housing for older residents, many of whom are in their 70s, 80s or 90s. Haque moved into the block in July of last year, and five months later, without the knowledge of the landlords—Southern Housing—he brought his second wife, 28-year-old Jakia Sultana Monni, and their twin three-year-old daughters into the one-bedroom flat. This arrangement broke the stated occupancy rules and altered the dynamics of a building designed to be quiet and suited to seniors.

The presence of a young family in a block aimed at the elderly had an immediate impact on life at David Smith Court. Residents described the twins’ frequent crying, corridors turning into makeshift play areas, the misuse of emergency pull cords and a general sense of disruption. Some residents told reporters that, although the children themselves were not to blame, the ambience of the building had changed, with a sense of nightly noise and activity that contrasted with years of relative quiet. Management soon asked the Haque family to leave, citing an increase in noise levels and what they described as anti-social behaviour that affected other residents. Haque refused to move unless alternative accommodation was found, reportedly acting on legal advice, and court proceedings to evict him and his family ensued.

In court, Haque’s legal representation argues that removing the family would infringe Article 8, which protects family life, including the right to live with one's spouse and children. His barrister, Isabel Bertschinger of One Pump Court in London, contends that the tenancy terms were never explained to Haque in a way he could understand—whether through Sylheti interpretation or translated materials—and that this lack of clarity undermines the basis for eviction. The case, heard in Reading County Court, has raised questions about how tenancy agreements are communicated to new arrivals, and about the balance between upholding housing policies designed to protect vulnerable seniors and safeguarding family life under European human-rights law.

Haque has lived in Britain since 1997 after arriving to work in a London area restaurant industry that employs many Bangladeshi workers. He has reported multiple trips to Bangladesh to marry, and his latest union produced the twin daughters who now live with him in the retirement flat. He has acknowledged that the children were born in Bangladesh and that their application to join him in the United Kingdom was processed last October, with their arrival occurring in December. The mismatch between Haque’s ability to navigate the UK’s immigration and family-visa processes versus his comprehension of tenancy terms has become a focal point of the case. Supporters say the litigation at least partially reflects the vagaries of an overburdened welfare system and the social pressures on families navigating long statues of public assistance, particularly when they reside in properties with strict age and occupancy rules.

Local officials have not gone uncriticized. Some councillors said Haque may be “gaming the system,” a charge that underscores tensions between rapid legal processes and the perceptions of fairness among long-standing residents. After meeting Haque, one local official described him as soft-spoken and reportedly somewhat confused by the process and language, suggesting that the individual’s vulnerability should be considered. Yet critics and residents alike argue that the dispute is symptomatic of broader housing pressures in the town: homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation have risen in Reading. Official figures indicated a near 18% increase in homeless people in the first quarter of 2025, with 402 households in temporary accommodation by the end of March, three-quarters of them with children.

While the Haque case unfolds, residents in the retirement wing have mixed feelings. Some sympathize with the children’s situation and view the family’s needs as legitimate; others worry about the practicalities of a household with toddlers in a building designed for seniors. Derek Cox, 77, a former mechanic living in the block, described how the noise has become a nightly issue and recounted personal friction with management over the matter. Tricia Hawkes, 86, who uses a wheelchair, expressed concern for fellow residents’ safety and comfort, noting that crowded surroundings could lead to accidents or the spread of illness among elderly tenants. A sense of unfairness was also palpable in her remarks, reflecting a broader belief that routine residents who have lived in the area for years should be prioritized when housing decisions are made.

In the wider political and policy context, the Haque case highlights ongoing debates about the use and potential abuse of Article 8 in civil law challenges. Critics argue that European human-rights law can be invoked to delay or derail evictions, sometimes by solicitors who rely on legal aid. Proponents, however, say Article 8 is a fundamental protection for family life that cannot be easily overridden, especially when the alternatives to eviction would cause additional hardship for vulnerable families. The incident sits alongside broader concerns about how the government plans to respond to migration pressures and to reduce the backlog of cases where human-rights considerations intersect with housing policy, poverty, and welfare programs.

The case is still before the court, and no final decision has been issued on the eviction from David Smith Court. For now, Haque remains in the one-bedroom flat with his wife and twins, a symbol of the friction between rule-bound tenancy policies and the legal arguments offered in defense of family life. The residents, managers, and local officials continue to weigh the competing interests: the comfort and safety of elderly tenants who have called the block home for years, and the needs of a growing family seeking stable, lawful housing in the same community. The ultimate outcome will likely hinge on the court’s interpretation of tenancy terms, the adequacy of language access for non-English speakers, and the broader question of how Article 8 protections should be weighed against housing-policy aims in mixed-age communities.