What would you do with the non-council tenants?

[Empusa]

I know there's the assumption that it was all council tenants and therefore kicking them all out of their homes is justice.

But how is that equal justice when home owning or private renting rioters will get to keep their homes? Is that the way we want justice to work? Only applied to certain groups?

Trust me, I want to see these halfwits suffer for what they've done. But this is so unbalanced, and feels like snobbery. As if the crime is worse if you are in council housing, but ok when better off?

[StealthPolarBear]

I think they should all pay for what they have done. Home owners would presumably be in a position to pay a huge fine and compensation to their victims - maybe twice the value of whatever they wrecked/stole.

[EdithWeston]

Councils and housing associations can act if there is local anti-social or criminal behaviour. The same provisions apply whether or not the act which broke the tenancy agreement was related to any specific incident. As only one set of proceedings has been issued (full details of case, nature of current offence, previous background all unknown) it strikes me that there is much less to this in actuality than the amount of heat on other threads.

Presumably for other tenants or residents, the equivalent "ASBO" type provisions would apply. Are there any? If not, did anyone care before today, or was it always OK to sling out nightmare families just as long as this affected social tenants only?

[Empusa]

"If not, did anyone care before today, or was it always OK to sling out nightmare families just as long as this affected social tenants only?"

That's a fair point. (God I wish I could have seen some old neighbours move out for ASB!) I don't think there are any rules like that for non-social housing.

I'd never really thought of it till now.

[GypsyMoth]

Why assume they are in a better financial position than council tenants??


They are all being punished by the courts, unfortunately, those who have signed tenancy agreements which carry clauses and insists on non anti social behaviour both in and out of the property

Also, LA housing is forbidden from bring used for criminal activity I.e harbouring stolen goods

Tenants know this when they sign up!

[StealthPolarBear]

I'm not, but as home owners, they can sell the house if they need to!

[StealthPolarBear]

or have it repossessed
Point I am making is there is a huge financial asset that they own that they can't claim not to
and yes I know some people may still have 100% mortgage but they'd be in the minority

[StealthPolarBear]

have I killed another thread?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I think you're confusing two different things. There's the justice determined by the courts... fines, custodial sentences, tagging etc. which applies to anyone equally regardless of status. And then there are the penalties that specifically apply when someone breaches the terms of their tenancy agreement. Private tenants don't have carte blanche to do as they please any more than social tenants. And if any tenant/mortgagee doesn't keep up with rent or mortgage payments because they've been gaoled or lost their d job due to breaking the law then they've got problems as well.

Don't think 'snobbery' comes it into it really...

[DogStrummer]

The OP raises an interesting point here. I'm fully in favour of eviction for council tenants who are involved in rioting (or where members of the household have been involved in rioting).

As far as private owner-occupiers go... Well I personally would be unable to go looting, as I'm subject to criminal record checks annually as part of my job. Any private employer nowadays will do a CR check before taking someone on. In fact, the consequences to my job/income of being convicted of an offense scare the hell out of me!

But, I would not be against legislation to make the personal assets (house, car) of convicted looters, and their parents/guardian, liable to seizure.

I have no fears. I won't be looting, and I know my kids won't, as they're being brought up properly (they'll be bloody well at home).

[StealthPolarBear]

I am surprised this thread stopped when it did. AFAIAC people who are home owners should not be able to wriggle out of paying fines through excuses of poverty

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Personal assets can be seized if they are believed to have been gained through criminal activity. Drug dealers like this one ordered to pay£45k in March spring to mind. And I thought, if you avoided paying fines, it usually meant a custodial sentence. Home-owners are not given special treatment.... suprised anyone thinks they are.