Advanced search

Kick em out of council housing

(122 Posts)
Ryoko Thu 11-Aug-11 17:53:48

I'm sorry but has this country completely given over to morons?.

So the out of touch idiot MPs want to kick the families of those involved out of Council housing, where is the justice?, am I the only one that remembers why the symbols of justice are a blindfold and set of scales?.

All those involved must be treated equally regardless of background, take the council homes away from the poor if you must, but also kick the rich from their homes for the actions of their stupid student spawn, kick the workers out of their rented flats for the stupidity that will cost them their jobs.

Change the record, the MPs have had it in for the poor for years endlessly blaming them for everything while turning a blind eye to white collar crime and tax avoidance, endlessly trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. with more and more news coming out the cases that are in court, the kids under 12, the Olympic ambassador, the upper class student, the 30 something teaching assistant etc it's clear to everyone this is not about unemployed teens in council estates, yet the MPs refuse to open their eyes and stop stamping on the poor.

usualsuspect Thu 11-Aug-11 17:56:14

Yep ,just blame the council tenants

same old same old bollocks

GypsyMoth Thu 11-Aug-11 17:56:42

its part of their tenancy agreement anti social behaviour will be tolerated

GypsyMoth Thu 11-Aug-11 17:57:03

they knew that when they signed the tenancy agreement

Gastonladybird Thu 11-Aug-11 17:58:35

Tax avoidance isn't illegal though. Whether you think It should be is another question but at present it's not a crime. Tax evasion is.

fuckityfuckfuckfuck Thu 11-Aug-11 17:59:08

And where exactly do you expect them to go? I really do think oucncil housing is a privelegde, god knows I wish I had a hope in hell of getting one, but people just don't treat it as such. I agree with the 'sling em out' sentiment, but it'll make a bad problem worse imo.

Ryoko Thu 11-Aug-11 17:59:42

So those who have enough money to own a home are let off then?, justice dependent on income rather then the crime itself, sounds like a good reason to riot to me.

GeeinItLaldy Thu 11-Aug-11 18:05:57

Christ almighty. What twat came off with that particular gem? Kick them out and then do what with them? It costs the tax payer a hell of a lot more to keep them in temporary accommodation than in their social housing.

GypsyMoth Thu 11-Aug-11 18:14:02

greenwich council were the first to announce it,few days ago

if they are anti social enough to be rioting/looting etc then you can pretty much bet that they are anti social at other times too. maybe their neighbours have put up with their crap for years. i know some of my neighbours in HA housing are on their final chance.

EdithWeston Thu 11-Aug-11 18:14:56

If there is a "good behaviour" clause in the tenancy (and many of them do), then it should be activated. These are not new provisions.

Activating them against those whose proven crime is to have smashed or burnt their neighbourhood is appropriate. They have shown they have no interest in their neighbourhood or the safety of their neighbours. It is in the interests of the shattered community to have those who hate and despise them so much no longer amidst them. It may also prove a unique opportunity for the criminals to have a fresh start.

One could be glib and say "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" - but the nugget in this, and in all of say JF, is that if you have a penalty (such as the existing "good behaviour" clause) and do not use it, you are storing up more trouble in the future.

Gastonladybird Thu 11-Aug-11 18:17:46

What fuck said.

GypsyMoth Thu 11-Aug-11 18:19:47

they can go to the houses everyone else turns down? (slough in my HA case)

Pan Thu 11-Aug-11 18:34:16

To quote the 'good behaviour' clause is entirely disengenuous.

This was designed for 'neighbour nuisance' purposes, if you prove to be a cause for concern amongst the people in your vicinity. And totally understandably so. No-one wants to have to put up with anti-social behaviour on their doorstep.

But to expand it, to include riot-related offences, or just for any offence is a twist on the nature of the agreement. IF the tenancy agreement said "if you are convicted of any offence you will be convicted" and it was signed by them in good faith then that would be different. But it isn't.

Of course all of the other social problems that would stem from that are another obstacle. Sooo..big brother is convicted of violent disorder/ burglary. Little sister in the same household is made homeless and has to lose all of her friends and change school, with the shameful reason to explain at the new school wherever it is.

just smells of revenge-justice even the Old Testament authors would be ashamed of.

GypsyMoth Thu 11-Aug-11 18:40:33

they will likely be banned from the local shops if convicted for trashing them....little sister might find that a bit shameful too......big brother trashed the neighbourhood,yet he walks past everyday. not allowed to shop locally. oh well.

Cocoflower Thu 11-Aug-11 18:43:46

You cannot kick people out of private homes though. Illogical thing to say.

GypsyMoth Thu 11-Aug-11 18:45:13

up their council tax til cost of rioting is recovered?

1944girl Thu 11-Aug-11 18:47:40

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pan Thu 11-Aug-11 18:48:44

and IF the person HAS been a nuisance for years, then they shouldn't have been allowed to be so. Councils and HAs have the means to act on that sort of stuff and do so every day. Reserving a retrospective action for people involved in offences re the riots is illogical, poss. unlawful and plainly absurd.

GypsyMoth Thu 11-Aug-11 18:50:19

many council tenants also pay full rent. they may have put up with these nightmare neighbours for years. why should they?

littleducks Thu 11-Aug-11 18:51:05

I think that they should evict people conviceted for riot related offences in their neighbourhoods, that is properly applying the 'no anti social behaviour' clauses......I am not so sure that it would be fair to evict a family because one member had participated in a riot, causing damage and looted, in a town/city miles away. As much as I would like for it to happen in some ways, it would not be truely fair, as there are council tenants who are conviceted of crimes regularly who are not then evicted, why should those three days of the year be any different?

meditrina Thu 11-Aug-11 18:54:19

I'd have thought that smashing up or burning down your neighbours' property fell pretty squarely under the category of "cause for concern" and "anti-social behaviour".

It's not retrospective if the clause is there. And I wouldn't want to see it automatically activated for every single offence. But I think it should be done if someone has been burning/smashing up the immediate area.

GypsyMoth Thu 11-Aug-11 18:54:51

no.its not easy to get someone evicted. i have a neighbour whose dogs bark constantly. and i mean constant. they use the garden as a toiket.....3 dogs....its NEVER cleaned up. can you imagine the smell?

i have gone as far as i can through complaints procedure.....diaries.letters and the environmental health listening equipment. the noise is just slightly short of the required decibels. so thats that

teens have had to revise for exams with a constant yap yap yap through the walls

this is a single woman in a 3 bed house.....3 dogs.....a family could be in it. its trashed too.

CustardCake Thu 11-Aug-11 18:55:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pan Thu 11-Aug-11 18:56:38

ILOVE - totally agree. A friend of mine is an Anti-social behaviour 'consultant' - massively experienced in these matters and guides LA's on how to apply the legislation. ON numerous times I ahve heard him say "why should council house dwellers be expected to put up with shit when (usually) private owners don't have to?"

if someone's conduct is unreasonable, then evict them. But to apply it here where any person in the house can attract eviction for all of the family is perverse.

Pan Thu 11-Aug-11 18:57:40

custard - I think that is the withdrawl of benefits petition.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: