Migrant Family Finds New Home in Retirement Community

A migrant father of nine has successfully delayed his eviction from a retirement home, allowing him and his young family to stay until more suitable housing can be arranged. The decision comes after he argued that being forced out would infringe upon his human rights.

Shahidul Haque, 59, has been engaged in a year-long legal battle to prevent his removal from the one-bedroom residence he shares with his 28-year-old wife and their young twin daughters.

Haque has been adamant that he will resist eviction unless a larger home is offered, claiming that removing his family would breach their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for family and private life.

The eviction case, initiated by Southern Housing, has now been postponed until after September 5, as discussions continue in search of a more appropriate home for the family.

Originally from Bangladesh, Haque has resided in the UK since 1997 and is now a British citizen. He is registered as disabled and receives benefits for several health issues, including diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, and depression.

He took up residence in the retirement property at David Smith Court in Reading in July 2024, paying a weekly rent of £110.70.

But just months later, on December 20, his wife Jakia Sultana Monni and their twin daughters joined him from Bangladesh – despite the accommodation being designated for over-55s and intended for single occupancy.

Mr Haque maintains he did not realise the specialist housing rules prevented him from bringing his family to live with him, claiming his limited English meant the tenancy agreement was not properly understood.

Speaking to the Daily Mail, he said: ‘When I filled out the tenancy agreement I was on my own and I moved into the flat alone.

‘I didn’t know that I couldn’t move my wife and children in months later. My English is not so good and nothing was explained to me in any detail.

‘Southern Housing cannot just throw us out. We have to stay here, because we have nowhere else to go.

‘What we really need is a bigger home. This property isn’t suitable for a family. It’s too small, it’s only for a single person.

‘We have only one bedroom and so have to push two beds together. One for me and my wife and one for my daughters. It’s too crowded.

‘If Southern Housing or West Berkshire Council can find us somewhere more suitable then we’ll go. But at the moment we have no other place – this is it.’

Lawyers acting for Mr Haque argue that the terms of his tenancy were never translated into Sylheti, his first language, and say evicting the family would breach his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In a written defence, his barrister Isabel Bertschinger said: ‘It is averred that the Terms and Conditions of the tenancy agreement were never explained to the Defendant via a Sylheti interpreter or translated into Sylheti in a written document such that the Defendant could understand them.’

She added: ‘The Claimant’s decisions to institute, pursue and continue to seek possession of the property are incompatible with the Defendant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and possession would constitute a disproportionate interference therewith.

‘He is disabled and has limited English language skills, and that he is in receipt of benefits and therefore has a low income.

‘His wife and children have only recently arrived in the UK and would be particularly vulnerable if made homeless.

‘To evict him from his home would have a serious and drastic impact on the Defendant’s health and wellbeing and therefore on his private life, and to prevent him from living with his wife and children would have a severe and disproportionate impact on his family life.’

Mr Haque said he did not realise he was not allowed to move his family into the block, because his knowledge of English meant he did not understand the tenancy agreement

But Southern Housing has pushed back, arguing Mr Haque breached the terms of his tenancy by moving extra occupants into accommodation specifically reserved for older residents.

The provider has also pointed to complaints from neighbours about noise and disruption caused by the young children.

Its solicitor Taiwo Temilade previously said: ‘The Defendant’s two young children have become a source of excess noise levels and anti-social behaviour, negatively affecting other residents within the estate through misuse of safety features and generally rambunctious behaviour.’ 

Mr Haque rejected the criticism, saying: ‘My children play and sometimes they argue, and the neighbours complain but they are only small. I try and keep them as quiet as possible.

‘They go to a local nursery so they’re not always at home in the day. They have sounded the emergency alarm by pulling the security cords, but I’ve wrapped the cords around the intercom phone to stop that from happening.

‘In London, I lived in a four-bedroom home. We need a house, not a small one-bed flat.’

At a previous hearing on August 4, deputy district judge Simon Lindsey acknowledged the complexity of the case and stopped short of granting an immediate eviction.

He said: ‘Fundamentally, I think the defendant probably should not be in this property with his wife and two children, but the question of how he came to be in this place appears to be unresolved and we have to get to that another time.’

Mr Haque was married to his first wife with whom he had seven children and lived in a four-bedroom home in Plaistow, East London.

But when he divorced he became homeless and was put up in temporary accommodation and then social housing in Newham before being transferred to David Smith Court.

Southern Housing has been approached for comment.