Is Horsham Council Morally Wrong In This Instance?

[retrocop]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6320099/West-Sussex-carer-lives-converted-horsebox-faces-eviction-Christmas.html?mrn_rm=rta-fallback

Ok. The Council has the law on it's side but A. This man is not a trespasser pitching up illegally on someones land.
B. He doesn't appear to be the cause of any likely health hazard.
C. He works in a very worthy and much needed occupation.
D. He isn't a burden on the state with a pack of ferile kids running amok around his humble abode.
His crime is he cannot find affordable housing within the area he works but feels comfortable and content with his lifestyle. He is not a moaner and certainly does not appear to display any sense of imagined entitlement.
I feel this reflects very badly on the local housing authorities who will more than likely put those who least deserve social housing first before the needs of a poorly paid working man who is trouble to no one.

How do feel about this gentleman's circumstances? Yes I know the Council has the law on their side but morally should they house him first before wielding eviction orders. They are not so robust when evicting trespassing travellers on their own property, after all ,so why chase this man who is on private land with permission.?

[jackthehat]

No.
There is no permission for any sort of Residential Occupation of this land.

Anything else is immaterial.

[vulcan42]

According to the article you can be evicted, it doesn't state you must be. Common sense should prevail here.

[chanel5]

Yes, I believe the council is morally wrong. But this man is an easy target for the jobsworths to flex their muscles over, and he will probably be the loser in the end.

[hc4361]

If they allow him to stay a precedent will be set and it will be impossible to evict the sort of people you don't want living on a non-residential piece of land next to you.

[ToraToraTora]

some council jobsworths want to have a look at themselves. He's not trespassing is he?

[cassa333]

How obtrusive is his ‘home’ on the surrounding area? It looks to be very nicely made up both inside and out though.

The council has been in touch with him regarding his housing needs but don’t know what, if anything he was offered.

Sometimes the state interferes more than it should but to let him off would give everyone and their dog the opportunity to flout planning laws so I do understand the council stance.

Morally I think he should be allowed to stay but legally and long term he should not.

[vulcan42]

hc4361, is the article wrong in its statement? In this case the council could say he can stay and in other cases they could say that person cannot stay. Of course, if the article is wrong then obviously so am I.

[hc4361]

He was first served notice to evict more than 2 years ago - he's had plenty of time to find alternative accommodation.
He claims he can't afford to buy in the area but he could rent or even become a lodger as so many people have to do.

Lots of people would love to live on private land 'off grid' like this and some do manage to get planning permission but it really can't be a free for all.

[emmie]

yes they are morally wrong, leave the man be, he has permission from the landowner so what more do they want.

[retrocop]

Am I correct in thinking the landowner has placed himself foul of the law also and is liable to be penalised as well?

[Old_Geezer]

The precedent is the worry. But he's been there a while unmoved on which should count for something. And now the council has taken an interest one wonders how quickly they'd have moved a group of belligerent travellers on. But anyway, surely there's no issue; the council, having opted to make him homeless will be putting him at the top of the list for a council home, maybe one with room for his box in the back garden, so he'll be settled in the new place before he needs to leave.

[dannyk13]

//He has permission from the landowner so what more do they want//
If this is true, what authority have the council to evict someone from private land?

[jackthehat]

Dannyk - It is private land but it has no designated 'residential' status.
He may be there at the landowners invitation but, in law, the landowner has no *right* to extend that invitation to him.

[retrocop]

There appears to be a precedent in this case, coincidentally, again in Sussex.
Apparently if he has made no attempt to conceal his presence to anyone and has lived there for over four years the council can issue a certificate of 'lawfulness to continue residence'
Hopefully the council will issue him with the keys to council accomodation instead.

[THECORBYLOON]

The paper has highlighted the need to leave before Christmas but he was given eighteen months' notice in July 2016. He has had a further eight months so what all has he been doing during that time?

[dannyk13]

JTH // It is private land but it has no designated 'residential' status//
Then surely the owner is the one at fault here.

[retrocop]

//He has had a further eight months so what all has he been doing during that time?//


Hopefully digging his heels in and challenging the council to find him affordable housing.

[hc4361]

Why should he be given council accommodation? He is a single man in full time work and could rent privately. If his wages are that low he can't afford to rent a modest flat or room he would surely be entitled to housing benefit?

He has been living very cheaply for a few years with no rent, council tax, water rates or fuel bills to pay. Surely he could have saved a deposit for a flat or room? Lots of people have to work two jobs to pay the bills.

[jackthehat]

Yes, the owner could find himself in hot-water; however, apart from mentioning that Steve Tremmel is there at his invitation the newspaper doesn't mention the landowner or what is happening to him.

[cassa333]

hc4361 @12.01 agree with you there.

Care workers may not earn a great deal but he’s had years of free accommodation. He should have saved a deposit on a rented flat or someth8ng by now.