High Court blocks move to evict innocent family » Housing » 24dash.com

Moves to evict an innocent family so that thousands of pounds can be clawed back from their criminal landlord have been blocked by the High Court.

Mustapha Aliane, his wife and baby daughter occupy a room at a house in Ilford, east London, owned by "N", a woman convicted in 2003 of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime.

A confiscation order was made against N, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in the sum of £778,550, and an enforcement receiver was appointed under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act to realise her assets.

N was declared bankrupt in March 2007 and the receiver started possession proceedings regarding the Ilford property, occupied by the Aliane family since December 2007.

Mr Aliane is an assured shorthold tenant of a single room at the house in Ilford, sharing the use of a kitchen and bathroom with the occupants of 11 other rooms.

The current tenancy expires on Christmas Day. In ordinary circumstances, he cannot be evicted without two months' notice from the landlord.

Deputy High Court Judge James Goudie said no such notice had yet been given.

James Sear, a second tenant of N, occupying a self-contained flat, had a weekly periodic tenancy and was also threatened with eviction.

N granted tenancies to both Mr Sear and Mr Aliane in breach of a restraint order forbidding her from having dealings with the property.

But none of the occupants of the property had been given notice that a receiver had been appointed - "and they should have been given such notice", said the judge.

The receiver made an application for a writ of possession on September 9 addressed not only to the owner but to "all other persons" at the property.

The judge ruled the "general scheme" of the confiscation legislation "is to realise the criminal's assets, but not to infringe the property rights... of other parties who may themselves be entirely innocent".

The judge added: "There is, of course, an important public interest in enforcing the confiscation order against N and doing so promptly.

"On the other hand, that interest does not override the rights of tenants, and enable those rights to be expropriated without compensation."

The judge varied the receivership order to protect the rights of both tenants,

Suspending the writ of possession, the judge said the 1988 Criminal Justice Act did not "trump" the 1988 Housing Act, which states tenants like the Alianes cannot be evicted without a court order and due notice.

Mr Aliane's case was brought by the Mary Ward Legal Centre, which provides free legal advice to those on a low income living or working in London, and also takes cases on their behalf.

Centre solicitor Joanna Newth said later: "The central point to take from this case is that a tenant's right to continue living in their home cannot simply be ignored when it comes to the realisation of assets that are deemed to be proceeds of crime.

"In this case the enforcement receiver had sought to evict the tenants without first terminating their tenancies, and the court held that the receiver did not have the power to do this.

"The court decided that until the tenancies are ended in compliance with the Housing Act 1988, the tenants have the right to remain in their homes.

"It would seem that the principle in this case should apply to all tenants no matter what type of tenancy they have."