Pensioner fighting to stay in his home of 70 years faces eviction after judge ruling
A pensioner who is fighting to remain in the home he has lived in for nearly 70 years now faces eviction.
A judge has ruled against Ken May, a pensioner from Gateshead, in his fight against eviction from the home he has resided in for almost 70 years.
The 69-year-old has been embroiled in a lengthy battle with Gateshead Council over the condition of his council house in Wardley, and now faces the renewed threat of being forcibly removed by bailiffs.
Earlier this year, Mr May received a temporary reprieve after challenging an eviction notice issued by the local authority. However, his appeal has now been dismissed.
A district judge at Gateshead County Court concluded there were "no grounds" to suspend the warrant and deemed the council's actions as "not an unlawful eviction."
READ MORE: Woman faces homelessness as all houses in village are second homes [LATEST]
Over the years, Mr May's dispute with the council has involved various issues, including an order to reconnect his property to the electricity grid instead of relying on a petrol generator, as well as demands to clean up the mess surrounding his home in Stanfield Gardens.
Despite a previous court ruling preventing the eviction from taking place on May 25, Mr May was warned he was in the “last chance saloon”.
The latest argument revolves around the council's claim Mr May has consistently refused to grant access to officials for property inspections.
Although Mr May did not attend the court hearing on Tuesday, he argued in written submissions that his right to occupy the property was protected by UK law, citing the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
He accused Gateshead Council of a “sustained and deliberate refusal” to recognise his human rights and of a "blatant disregard for the law."
However, District Judge Charnock-Neal ruled in favour of the council, stating they had the right to demand access as outlined in Mr May's tenancy agreement.
She emphasised safety checks and inspections were essential to ensure the lawful use and proper maintenance of the property.
The judge also dismissed Mr May's claims of a breach of his human rights, stating there were "no grounds" to suspend the warrant and no evidence of malicious prosecution.
She said: “The warrant is because the defendant is not allowing access for inspection or safety checks to the property, which is a requirement under the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement.
"For the safety of himself and others, there is a requirement from the local authority and any landlord to ensure that safety checks are carried out and that the property is inspected to ensure that it is being used lawfully and maintained in a good condition.”
Gateshead Council had argued to rule in favour of Mr May would have “undermined the basis of contract law and the tenancy agreement”. The judge added there were “no grounds” to suspend the warrant, “no malicious prosecution”, and “no breach of his human rights”.
The judge ordered Mr May to pay the council a £131 warrant fee by August 8. Despite the ruling, Mr May remains resolute in his determination to remain in his home, asserting his statutory right to continue occupying the property.
He said: “I am exercising my statutory right to remain in occupation.”
The council is yet to set a new date for the proposed eviction.
This article was crafted with the help of AI tools, which speed up Express.co.uk’s editorial research. A news editor reviewed this content before it was published. You can report any errors to readercomplaints@reachplc.com.
