Blanket Injunctions against travellers not possible…
Gypsies and Travellers:
It has been the practice over the past several years for local authorities to apply to the courts for a “blanket” borough-wide injunction against travellers setting up unauthorised sites and taking over open land.
The Court of Appeal has now reviewed several such anti-traveller injunctions following a recent case and submissions from a number of local authorities, Liberty and the London Gypsies and Travellers.
The Court of Appeal determined that there are around 38 such injunctions currently in force and concluded that as more are obtained, pressure builds on other authorities to do likewise. And because these injunctions are usually sought against “persons unknown” there are rarely any represented defendants.
In
Bromley LBC v
Persons Unknown (Liberty, London Gypsies and Travellers, and numerous
local authorities, intervening) (2020) as
reported by the
nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/ Bromley
LBC applied for an injunction preventing unauthorised encampments on
171 sites in the borough (fields, car parks etc). It also sought
injunctions against waste and fly-tipping.
The
Deputy High Court judge had
granted the injunctions
against waste and fly-tipping but refused it in respect of the
encampments. It was the
latter decision that was
the subject of the
appeal.
The
Court determined that it
is
possible to obtain an
injunction against
“persons unknown” and also that the injunction can
be obtained in
anticipation of possible future unlawful acts.
However,
the question was whether
or not it
was proportionate in terms of Art.8, ECHR and the
Equality Act 2010. In
this regard, the court
identified following
points for consideration,
as reported by nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/:
(a)
Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are a particularly vulnerable
minority group whose members routinely experience discrimination and
the worst social outcomes of any minority group. A nomadic lifestyle
is a central element of their lifestyle and culture. There is a
serious shortage of sites for them to use which, in turn, leads to a
situation where they end up having to set up unauthorised
encampments.
(b)
the injunction was, in effect, an “all borough” injunction;
(c)
there was no evidence of past criminality by the affected group;
(d)
there were no suitable alternative sites provided (or identified) by
the local authority;
(e)
the cumulative effect of other injunctions obtained by other local
authorities in the area;
(f)
there had been no proper engagement with the affected groups, no
consideration of the needs of elderly (or other similarly vulnerable)
members of that group; this one was considered of central importance,
with the Court explaining that “… if the appropriate
communications, and assessments (like the Equality Impact Assessment)
are not properly demonstrated, then the local authority may expect to
find its application refused”.
(g)
the injunction was sought for a long period of time (5 years, without
any built-in review period);
(h)
it was possible that the injunction would impact on permitted
development rights (a planning law concept – in fairness, the Court
is quite keen not to get into the planning law issues);
(i)
whether or not the local authority would suffer irreparable harm.
The
Appeal Court upheld the Deputy
Judge’s decision
that it was “disproportionate to grant the injunction” and
the Appeal was
dismissed.
The onus is now put on local authorities as the only obvious solution to this issue is to provide more designated transit sites for the Gypsy and Traveller community.
The nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/ website states that: The “obvious implication is that an anti-traveller injunction just became a lot harder to obtain if the local authority claimant doesn’t also provide some lawful sites which can be used. Given that most authorities would rather eat nails than provide suitable sites, this should – hopefully – cause some of our leafy shire councils to start to rethink their approach.
“It’s also something that the government will need to consider as part of the ongoing consultation on a proposal to create a new criminal offence of trespass for the purposes of establishing an unauthorised encampment…”
©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – Blanket Injunctions against travellers not possible… | LandlordZONE.
View Full Article: Blanket Injunctions against travellers not possible…
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,917)
Archives
- December 2024 (44)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords could pay tenants up to two years’ rent for failing Decent Homes Standard as PBSA is exempt
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025