Outer House blocks eviction of showpeople family from plot in Govan

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] CSOH 19
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lady Drummond

Glasgow City Council brought proceedings against members of the Stringfellow family and other occupiers of land owned by the pursuer at 22 Pearce Street in Govan, Glasgow, seeking declarator that they had no right or title to occupy the land and an order for them to remove from the land, or warrant for their ejection. The defenders argued that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, or alternatively the 1983 Act, applied to their lease and the former Act should be read down to be compatible with articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in respect of the seventh defender.

The case was heard by Lady Drummond in the Outer House of the Court of Session. Interventions in the case were made by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland, and by the Lord Advocate due to the defenders seeking declarations of incompatibility with human rights law.

Capable of being moved

The site occupied by the defenders had been identified for redevelopment in accordance with phase 2 of the pursuer’s Water Row Development Master Plan, the proposal being to use the site for housing, parking, and access routes to other accommodation and commercial blocks. On 26 April 1995, the pursuer granted a lease of the ground to the first defender, Jimmy Stringfellow, for the purpose of parking showpeoples’ residential caravans, which had continued by tacit relocation following the expiry of the original term.

While the parties agreed that the site was a protected site, a disagreement arose between the parties as to the applicable legislative framework, with the pursuers submitting that neither the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 nor the Mobile Homes Act 1983 applied. In respect of the latter, the pursuer submitted that the first defender’s chalet was not a mobile home as defined by the Act as it was not capable of being moved. It was noted that the definition of “mobile home” in the 1983 Act was to be identical to the meaning of “caravan” in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which defined the term as meaning any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which was capable of being moved from one place to another.

The pursuer relied on the first defender’s evidence that the chalets on the site were double chalets bolted together where they joined, requiring them to be unbolted to be transported as two separate parts. Additionally, the seventh defender’s chalet had suffered damage due to vibrations from drilling on the new housing development and as a result would not survive a move. The pursuer further argued that, even if the first defender did have a statutory agreement with them, none of the other defenders had such an agreement.

The first defender submitted that, as a tenant under the 1995 lease, he had a Scottish secure tenancy under the 2001 Act, or alternatively that the Act should be read down to provide him with such a tenancy. As a consequence, the notice of removal served on him was ineffective as it did not comply with section 12 of the 2001 Act. The 1983 Act was employed as a fallback position, on the basis that it also granted security of tenure in the circumstances.

Unlimited planning permission

In her decision, Lady Drummond said of the applicability of the 1983 Act: “The parties agreed in 1995 that the first defender could station caravans on the site, in the knowledge of the chalets the first defender and others had already stationed on site. To argue now, over 30 years later, that the chalets are not caravans and therefore that the first defender has none of the protections of the legislation seems to fly in the face of what the parties agreed in 1995. In any event, the definition of caravan under section 29 does not exclude chalets.”

She explained this point further: “Both the second and seventh defender stated that the chalets are moveable. The chalets were physically capable of being moved on to the site prior to the start of the lease when they arrived in two pieces unbolted. Whilst many mobile homes like chalets of this nature may not be easily moved, they are clearly capable of being so moved.”

Considering whether the other defenders could claim protection under this Act, Lady Drummond said: “Although the 1995 lease prohibits sub-letting without the permission of the owner, the parties accept that the pursuer knew the first defender was sub-letting to some of the other defenders as the pursuer agreed to pay housing benefit in respect of their tenancies. It was implicit in the evidence of the first defender that he allowed and therefore agreed that the other defenders could stay on the site and station their chalets on the site.”

She concluded: “The significance of the 1983 Act applying is that the pursuer has not sought to terminate the agreement in accordance with its provisions. Unlimited planning permission having previously been granted, the pursuer would need to obtain an order from the sheriff court on one of the grounds provided for in the Act. The order could only be granted on the sheriff being satisfied it is reasonable to do so (although I note that under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 this will, in the future, be a matter for the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland). The pursuer is not able to obtain such an order in these proceedings in the Court of Session.”

The pursuer’s pleas-in-law were therefore repelled on this basis.

Entirely different position

Considering that the matter may proceed further, Lady Drummond went on to consider the ECHR arguments for reading down the 2001 Act, saying: “The defenders are treated differently from those that the 2001 Act applies to because they do not lease a house. They are in the same position as others who have agreements with a landowner to station mobile homes on protected sites and to occupy it as their only or main residence. They are in an entirely different position from individuals who rent houses from local authorities.”

She added: “Overall, the pursuer has taken various steps to accommodate the defenders’ needs and to allow them to live lawfully as travelling showpeople. Removal is in pursuance of the twin legitimate aims and is not outweighed by the factors relied upon. The defenders’ arguments amount to a plea to retain their home in a specific place which is not protected by Article 8.”

Representation:

Pursuer: Reid KC, G Reid; A MacKenzie, (sol-adv); Harper MacLeod LLP
First Defender: Murray KC, Blockley; Drummond Miller LLP for JustRight Scotland
Seventh Defender: Scott KC, McEwan; Drummond Miller LLP for JustRight Scotland
Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland: Pirie KC, F McLeod, (sol-adv)
Lord Advocate: Mure KC, James; Scottish Government Legal Directorate