Complete 11 pages APA formatted article: Human Rights as to Heather and Len. the preamble to the HRA states that its purpose is to “give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights”.

Furthermore, section 2(1) of the HRA asserts that “A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account Convention rights” and any determinations by the European Court of Human Rights2. Moreover, section 3(1) imposes a positive obligation on judicial authorities to interpret all legislation “in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights”. Accordingly, the HRA “has had the effect of incorporating the European Convention on Human rights into our law giving individuals rights which can be directly enforced in the UK courts3”. Accordingly, the parties mentioned in this scenario will potentially be able to rely on relevant rights accorded under the Convention under domestic law.

Furthermore, section 6(1) of the HRA provides that “it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right”. Therefore the relevant issue is whether Helpful Borough Council is performing a public function and is, therefore, a “public authority”. It is established that local authorities and councils are considered to be “public authorities” for the purpose of the HRA, therefore Heather and Len could potentially have a claim against the Council if they can establish a breach of Convention rights.

If the transfer goes ahead, the issue arises as to whether Heather and Len can bring an action against the private company for breach of Convention rights. The issue about “hybrid” bodies is complex and case law has been inconsistent. In the Court of Appeal decision in Poplar v Donoghue4 for example, the courts had granted a possession order under the Housing Act 1988 to Poplar, which was a registered social landlord housing association. The issue arose as to whether Poplar was a public authority under the HRA and the Court of Appeal held that it was asserting that “in this case, in providing accommodation for the defendant and then seeking possession, the role of Poplar is so closely assimilated to that of Tower Hamlets that it was performing public and not private functions”[1].&nbsp.