In their application for repossession, TLT Solicitors (acting for NatWest) ticked the box stating that the case did not involve human rights. On the surface, this might look like a minor procedural detail. But in a case involving someone’s home, it carries serious legal weight.
So, were they right to tick it?
Technically? Maybe. Truthfully? Not really.
1. Repossession always engages human rights — but they don’t always apply automatically.
The Human Rights Act 1998, specifically Article 8, protects the right to respect for private and family life, including the home. The courts have confirmed (e.g. in Pinnock [2010] and Powell [2011]) that any possession hearing must allow for an Article 8 defence — if the defendant raises it.
So while Article 8 is engaged in principle in all possession cases, it only becomes active in court if the occupier argues it and shows why the eviction would be disproportionate.
2. So why did TLT tick “no human rights involved”?
They may argue that no Article 8 defence had been raised yet, and that the claim was a straightforward financial matter. This would give them a technical basis to tick “no.”
But in this case, that explanation doesn’t hold.
The claimant (NatWest) and their solicitors (TLT) were already:
- Refusing pre-litigation engagement
- Ignoring many emails.
- Ignoring Broader Situation which involves cover up of attempted murder (https://propertycorruption.com/basic-situation/)
- At end of 3 Oct it will be known whether TLT is withholding disclosure (see: https://propertycorruption.com/significant-pre-action-protocol-issues/)
- Potentially involved in serious procedural misconduct (see: https://propertycorruption.com/misleading-about-conflict-of-interest-tlt-solicitors-and-kam-oneill/)
- Ignoring pre litigation in other case: https://propertycorruption.com/tlts-obstruction-of-a-live-pre-action-claim/
These aren’t normal circumstances. TLT knew, or should have known, that there were substantial grounds for a proportionality defence under Article 8.
Ticking the box to say “no human rights involved” in that context isn’t just premature — it can be seen as an attempt to shut down scrutiny and limit the court’s ability to assess fairness.
3. Why it matters
If the court is misled into thinking that human rights don’t apply, it may skip over key questions:
- Is this eviction fair?
- Is it proportionate?
- Is there misconduct being hidden?
The danger is that the legal process becomes a tool for concealment rather than justice.
Final point:
Even if TLT can justify ticking “no” on paper, doing so while suppressing disclosure and avoiding engagement strongly undermines the fairness of the proceedings.
It raises real concerns about whether the tick-box was used to block scrutiny and push through a repossession without full accountability.
That goes beyond legal error. It edges into abuse of process.
Mark Routley (see below) of TLT is well known for his work defending entities against residents’ human rights claims. As an expert in this field, would he agree with the above analysis?
