Constructive Eviction
Google and Yahoo! searches on ‘constructive eviction’ and ‘what is constructive conviction’ have produced hits on this website’s Open Letter page.
Presumably, the term is initially puzzling to some. It may be that our website page satisfied those who enquired, but just in case it didn’t, the further explanation and comment on this page may help to clarify our use of ‘constructive eviction’.
At the time we began using the term ‘Constructive Eviction’, it was not a legal expression in this country. It is, however, a recognised legal term in the USA, but may bear a slightly different emphasis there in its most common use. Whether the UK has followed suit, or will follow, is anyone’s guess.
‘Constructive Eviction’ occurs a dozen times on this website prior to this page, the first use occurring in the Committee’s Desperate Email, sent to all DCC and ECC Councillors on 23rd January 2007.
The use we make of the term was quite clearly defined in the Open Letter (emailed 31st January 2007) mentioned above. As we are using it, ‘Constructive Eviction’ is an analogous expression to Constructive Dismissal. We consider that the Club has been ‘Constructively Evicted’ from the premises it leased for over three decades because DCC and ECC collaborated to offer heads of terms for renewal which were massively disadvantageous to the Club compared with those of its expiring 28 year lease. There is evidence to suggest this was a deliberate ploy by ECC officers.
These were onerous, impractical and unsustainable, besides denying the Club the security needed to motivate volunteers. With the City Council exposing the premises to vandals by opening up the school playing field, things became impossible for the Club. Under extreme duress, the Club had no other option than to vacate the premises and hand back the keys. DCC tried to interpret this as a voluntary act, but it was made quite clear in a letter to Mr Penaligon (Devon Property) dated 26th February 2007 that this was not so, and negotiations were ongoing as far as the Club was concerned. The Club had no wish to terminate its tenancy, but a suspension was essential under the prevailing conditions at that time.
It now appears that one or other of the Councils would have taken the Club to court had it tried to claim protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The bullying experienced by the Club seems to have been a deliberate act assuming that volunteers would not claim their rights under the law. Those responsible for this mean strategy were quite correct. What group of citizens would wish to take their civic leaders to court? The Club sought harmonious cooperation. The Councils, on the other hand, practised mindless legalism.
There are some really serious questions to be asked of Eddie. His head is still firmly buried, but it is absolutely essential that he accounts fully for all the circumstances surrounding the ‘constructive eviction’ of the Summerway Junior LTC.