the Southern Cross colapse has shown , once again the way residents of care homes are exposed to financial weather , both unforeseen , and only too well foreseen by speculators . There is no security of tenure at present for residents of care homes.The House of Lords ruled in the case of YL v Birmingham City Council 2007 that the Private Law Rights of Care Home owners prevail over the Public Law Rights of residents Lord Bingham ,one of most respected Law Lords , said when siding with YL said ' Those who qualify for residential care under sections 21 and 26 are, beyond argument, a very vulnerable section of the community.. These risks would have been well understood by Parliament when it passed the 1998 Act. If, as may be confidently asserted, Parliament intended the Act to offer substantial protection of the important values expressed in the articles of the Convention given domestic effect b the 1998 Act, it can scarcely have supposed that residents of privately run care homes, placed in such homes pursuant to sections 21 and 26 of the 1948 Act, would be unprotected.' and in 20.' When the 1998 Act was passed, it was very well known that a number of functions formerly carried out by public authorities were now carried out by private bodies. Section 6(3)(b) of the 1998 Act was clearly drafted with this well-known fact in mind. The performance by private body A by arrangement with public body B, and perhaps at the expense of B, of what would undoubtedly be a public function if carried out by B is, in my opinion, precisely the case which section 6(3)(b) was intended to embrace. ' Interveners YL v Birmingham City forsecurity of tenure were Dept. Constitutional Affairs Justice, Liberty and BIHR Help the Aged and the National Council on Ageing Disability Rights Commission Dawn Oliver University London wrote in' Human Rights and the Private Sphere 2008.' ‘ My own view is that it is for Parliament to decide these matters. The courts will develop the law, including private law, towards creating indirect horizontal effect of convention rights, but they will be rightly concerned not to disturb the operation of ordinary law ’ The courts must obey the law enacted by Parliament. Lord Bingham’s decision seems to me ideal , and that his finding should inform Government in legislating to redress it’s reprehensible omission all these years.- in Coughlan 1999 the court of Appeal for the first time enacted under Article 8 ECHR law under Article 8 to give to give security of tenure to residents of a care home run by John Grooms. Since then , due to the way many courts have found Private law to prevail over Public law , tens of thousands have been evicted with no redress at law . This group of citizens may be bought and sold like a commodity , Southern Cross being the latest blatant example. Lord Bingham’s decision seems to me ideal , and his finding should inform Government in legislating to redress it’s reprehensible omission all these years.-[ Bingham- YL v Birmingham City Council 2007] Our Country used to be a fair and decent place to live. Government should not stand by and watch Greed ruin everything, it is the nature of the beast to be indifferent to damage it causes , indeed to create or take advantage of unclear legislation. Please debate this recommendation to ammend the ECHR ,as Lord Bingham says parliament surely intended , to protect residents and give them legal redress .