LOCK-change evictions against "failed" asylum seekers are not illegal, the Court of Session has ruled.
Home Office contractor Serco provoked outrage last summer when it revealed plans to "move on" residents of some of its properties in Glasgow.
Individuals affected had reached the end of the UK asylum process and were no longer in receipt of government support.
Critics said the repossessions would exacerbate hardship and suffering for destitute and vulnerable people and the process was halted after legal challenges began.
Today Court of Session judge Lord Tyre dismissed a case brought by Govan Law Centre, which claimed removals against two Kurdish women were unlawful, breaching tenancy and human rights rules.
In his ruling, Lord Tyre said he was "not persuaded" of the arguments made against Serco and the Home Office, concluding: "Neither of the pursuers has made out a relevant case for any of the orders sought."
Serco – which will stop housing asylum seekers in Scotland from September –welcomed the result but said no immediate action will be taken. Senior figure Julia Rodgers said: "We said we would unreservedly welcomed the legal challenge as it would enable all parties to clarify what was at that point an untested area of Scottish law. Today we have that clarity, and we are pleased that the Court of Session has confirmed our views on the legal position."
Meanwhile, the Home Office said: "We have and will continue to work closely with local authorities and partners to ensure that those who have no right to be in the UK leave their accommodation in a safe and secure way. We are working with Glasgow City Council to agree and implement a support advice referral process for those at risk of potential eviction."
Govan Law Centre is to consider the "complex and comprehensive" judgement. Its solicitor advocate Mike Dailly commented: "Standing today’s court ruling, any asylum seeker threatened with a lock-change eviction in Scotland will need to challenge that decision by lodging an urgent appeal to the First Tier Immigration Tribunal. The practicalities of people being able to do so are challenging and not always straight-forward, and Govan Law Centre hopes to explore these serious challenges with partner agencies in Glasgow."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel