Proceeding contribution from Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2 March 2011. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011; Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011; Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011.
Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011
For the life of me, I cannot understand how, when the order comes into force and someone brings proceedings in respect of a Gypsy living in a mobile home under the 1983 Act, a court is not bound to reach the same conclusion as it did in the case of Berry. It would say, ““This person is not a Gypsy and he is therefore not entitled to benefit from the provisions of the order or of the 1983 Act””. What fallacy is there in that argument?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 725 c183GC
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Caravan sites Fees and charges Local government Park homes Tribunals Travellers
- Legislation
- Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011
- Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011
- Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 21:05:53 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_719849
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_719849
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_719849