This has triggered a wide-ranging debate on the reasonableness of this measure. What we do know is that entire families are now liable to homelessness due to the actions of one person in the family. The tactic used to enable this is the commonly-applied clause to be of 'good behaviour'. This is designed to protect other tenants inthevicinity from anti-social behaviour. We know that approx. 70% of offenders here do not live in that vicinity. LAs DO NOT accept responsibility for abti-social behaviour in other boroughs.
The proposed actions are discriminatory against LA/HA tenants per se (as compared with owner-occupiers/private tenants, and will fall hardest on single parent mothers with sons who have offended recently.
Is it reasonable to ask MN to use their voice/influence to raise a public campaign against these measures before a case precedent is established that can be used by LA/HAs to assist in their evictions policy?
There ARE people who should be evicted from LA homes (one I had to sufffer living next to for years) but no one should be evicted solely on the basis of the criminal actions of one member on one occassion.
Meanwhile, those in privately owned/rented homes can get away with it.
ILove - as I did say elsewhere, if they have a history of neighbour abuse then there are powers to deal wit hthem already - this is purely about a knee-jerk reaction against the families of people who have been convicted, say for stealing some water bottles or chewing gum.
It's not a case of "now" liable. It is far from new to have a "good behaviour" clues, binding on all members of the household.
The circumstances of the one case (so far) which might lead to an eviction have not yet been made public. The council involved has used its eviction powers without outcry in the past - we simply do not know how well this single case fits either the wording of the clause or the previous cases in which the council has used it. Given that Clapham Junction is in this council's area, there must be many with riot-related charges or convictions on it's patch, but only one tenancy is affected, it strongly suggests that riot-related activity is neither a necessary nor sufficient cause in its deliberations.
I think a campaign would be premature at this point.
TSC also as the mother has been evicted that counts as "intentional homelessness" and therefore she is not eligible for accomodation through the council - so there is a question-mark over what happens to her and the children.
I'd be on board to support this pan. I think it's shocking that they are even thinking this. Surely is LA/HA's start making people homeless, they are no better than the people who destroyed people's homes and businesses to start with. The people involved do need to be punished, but not like this.
'intentionally homeless' - this was part of the Housing Act 1977 and was designed to stop people moving problematically in and out of housing services. Again, same as the 'good behaviour clause' this is being wildly abused by the authorities to show how butch they can be.
It's repulsive to me that people on her are saying they 'don't give a shit' about homelessness inflicted on entirely innocent members of a household that happened to have a rioter in it (let alone people who if they had committed crimes in any other context would not be at any risk of losing their homes).
I know if I were a mother of a strapping 17 year old lad in a rough area trying to control him and stop him being caught up in all that crap (and yes the rioters were criminals and I condone nothing they did) I doubt I'd be physically able to do it. Would you be? But it's fine to condemn such a woman to homelessness, or to have children put in foster care because their mother handled stolen goods; or perhaps their grandma did, or their dad.... Disgusting attitude from Little Englanders who think 'the underclass' are all one revolting breed who deserve punishment not for any crime, but for simply being associated with criminals or living with them.
Well, FWIW Geneva IV prohibits collective punishment of civilians during times of war. Surely if this is not on even in the most exceptional circumstances we should be able to agree that it's also not something we should be engaging in otherwise?