On 17 January 2013, the UK High Court in Knowles v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ruled that Gypsies occupying caravans on private land were not discriminated against by legislation which resulted in them not being able to claim full Housing Benefit (HB) to cover their rent.
The UK Housing Benefit scheme provides caravan occupiers on a Local Authority owned site the full rebate of the rent charged. However, where the occupiers are situated on a private site, then the HB is subject to a determination by a rent officer and there is usually a shortfall between the benefit received and the full rent charged.
The claimants submitted that the HB scheme was therefore discriminatory and in breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (prohibition of discrimination), when read with Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for family and private life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol 1 (rights to property).
The claimants argued that the HB scheme did not make proper allowance for the fact that gypsies living on private sites have additional costs than those on local authority sites. These additional costs largely arose out of the necessity of having a gypsy liaison officer on site. They contended that the determined rate of rent they had to pay meant that they were suffering hardships which would eventually lead to their eviction.
Convention jurisprudence has developed a duty on States to “facilitate the gypsy way of life” for ethnic Gypsies and Travellers (Chapman v United Kingdom) and that way of life requires “special protection” (DH v Czech Republic). They submitted that if they were unable to remain at the site they would be unable to carry on the traditional way of life that they wished to follow.
High Court Judge Hickinbottom found that the additional costs incurred did not fall within the HB scheme as they were not accommodation costs, but the costs of other services and facilities. He stated that even if he were to find that these additional costs were in fact accommodation costs, there was an objective justification for requiring Gypsies on private sites to bear these costs rather than the state under the HB scheme.
According to the Judge, even if Gypsies and Travellers living on private sites have to make up for the shortfall from other income, it does not inevitably mean they would be made homeless or that it would prevent them continuing their traditional way of life.
Click here to read the judgment
Click here to read a UK Human Rights Blog article
Meanwhile in Ireland, Amnesty International has urged the government to push for Roma and Traveller rights in its recommendations for the Irish EU presidency. It stated that Ireland should lead by example in combating and preventing discrimination in all its forms and ensure that roma and travellers can fully play their part in EU societies.
Click here to read Amnesty International Ireland’s recommendations to Irish EU Presidency