Hypothectical Question ..
Has anyone that is BR and has equity 'fought' against the courts/OR to retain their house on the grounds of
Human Rights Act 1998, The First Protocol, Article 1 ?
Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act 1998 states ‘every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest’. This indicates that possession of the family home should only be interrupted if it is in the public interest. It may be argued that leaving a family homeless in order to pay a bankrupt’s creditors is not in the public interest.
ie: if it could be shown that it was impossible to get a private rental and you were going to have to throw yourself on the mercy of the public purse to get a council house - could it be argued that the OR should not be able to take your home away on the grounds that it is not in the public interest .
Have a look at ..
http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofi ... part_8.htm
These are the Insolvency Services on-line notes !
"In applying sections 335A, 336 and 337 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in a manner compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, the court may perhaps treat the circumstance of a family about to lose their home to a creditor as an exceptional circumstance. The enactment of the Human Rights Act may redefine a bankrupt family’s rights. "
Makes ya think
Mish