When a retirement complex in Reading became the unexpected centre of a legal dispute, it highlighted tensions between housing rules and family rights.
At the heart of the case is 59-year-old Shahidul Haque, a Bangladeshi migrant who moved his family into his single-room flat at David Smith Court without permission, arguing that evicting them would violate his human rights.
The Background: Moving In Alone
Haque, who has lived in the UK since 1997 and holds a British passport, originally moved into the retirement home in July 2024 after applying for help from West Berkshire Council following a period of homelessness.
The complex is reserved for residents aged 55 and over, and Haque’s flat is just a single room.
At the time, he moved in alone.
Family Joins Without Permission
By December 2024, Haque had brought his 28-year-old wife, Jakia Sultana Monni, and their three-year-old twin daughters into the property without notifying the housing authorities.
Officials from Southern Housing, which owns the complex, said this violated the tenancy agreement and took Haque to Reading County Court to reclaim the flat.
Haque maintains that he didn’t realize the move was prohibited because he could not read the tenancy agreement, which was written in English, a language he struggles with.
He argues that removing his family would breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to family life.
Complaints from Neighbours
Residents of David Smith Court have repeatedly complained about excessive noise and disruptive behaviour.
According to Southern Housing, complaints were made on 39 different days between December 2024 and October 2025.
Elderly tenants reported being woken by loud shouting, doors banging, and children running around—even between 1:30am and 3:30am.
Court documents show that Haque was contacted about the noise by the scheme’s housing officer, Janique Paul, but he reportedly said he could not control it because the children were young.
There are also allegations that his daughters drew on the walls and frequently pulled the emergency assistance cord intended for residents in need.
Legal Arguments and Health Concerns
Haque’s barrister argues that eviction would have a severe impact on his family life, particularly given his health conditions—diabetes, sleep apnoea, hypertension, and depression—and his limited English skills.
Haque claims he has no alternative housing and that forcing him and his family out would seriously affect their wellbeing.
Southern Housing counters that the property is not suitable for a young family and that the other residents should not have to endure ongoing disturbances.
They also argue that Haque’s alleged disabilities do not make the flat more appropriate for children and that he breached tenancy rules, including clauses about property misuse and damage.
Court Proceedings and Delays
The case first appeared in court in August 2025, when the judge decided not to immediately grant possession to Southern Housing, citing Haque’s Article 8 rights.
The hearing, originally scheduled for January 6, has now been postponed to May 5.
Southern Housing has emphasized the repeated complaints and alleged misuse of emergency equipment, while Haque continues to insist that he and his family have nowhere else to go and that the flat, though small and overcrowded, is their only option.
Haque’s Perspective
In interviews, Haque has said he simply did not understand the rules of his tenancy and that the property is far too small for a family.
He explained that the flat has only one bedroom, forcing them to push two beds together for himself, his wife, and their daughters.
Haque has stated he is willing to move if alternative housing is provided but has none at present.
Broader Implications
The case also touches on a wider debate in the UK regarding Article 8 of the ECHR, which has been cited in other instances to prevent evictions or deportations.
In September 2025, the Attorney General indicated that the government might consider changes to how courts interpret Article 8 to prevent its potential misuse.
What’s Next?
As the legal battle continues, the focus remains on balancing the rights of a family to live together against the rights of elderly residents to peace and quiet in age-restricted housing.
The May 5 court date is now seen as the next crucial moment for a resolution in this complex and emotional case.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn