If the families of rapists and murderers don't generally lose their homes...(26 Posts)
Why should it be regarded as appropriate to do this in the case of property crimes? Yes, of course, people who steal and commit criminal damage should be punished, but evicting entire families over this when people who have raped, abused and killed others don't even lose their own home is a bit excessive. And if you support it, you are a moron.
Agree, I can't believe they will really follow through with this policy.
You're missing the point. The reason why some are being faced with eviction is because they have breached the terms of their tenancy agreement ie. that they or anyone in their household will not to be involved in criminal activity in their local area. It's not a sentence handed down by a court for a particular crime, it's a recourse open to all councils to get rid problem tenants who are using their tax-payer subsidised home as a base for crime
There is also a thread in campaigns
Please join the campaign if you disagree with this policy
Quite. I can see how this works, according to the terms Cogito describes, but it's being presented by many as a punitive measure. It gives a pretty lousy message about the value another person's body vs the window of Primark.
Of course it's a punitive measure. My feeling is that Wandsworth may or may not carry through this eviction notice but have made the case particularly high profile in order to fire a warning shot across the bows of their tenants. The tenancy agreement covers particular antisocial behaviours.
Its also the second breach of the tennancy as the papers confirm that there are arrears on the rent for a large amount.
Its a good measure, perhaps now people will think twice before commiting crimes on their community.
I should think the families of rapists and murderers do lose their homes.
For one thing, being in prison for 10 years+ severely affects your ability to pay the rent or the mortgage. Generally private landlords or the banks aren't sympathetic to convicted criminals who lose their liberty and therefore their jobs and means to pay for housing.
And secondly if the rape or murder was a local one, I can't imagine it is too comfortable to stay put in the local community where a member of one family has devastated lives. I am guessing that family, however innocent, would come in for a lot of abuse and trouble and would often need to move on.
And thirdly - the fallout of commiting any crime is often that other people suffer. This isn't decreed by the courts or the council but by the nature of being a criminal or being related to one. If my DH goes to prison, me and the kids are out on the street no matter how innocent we are. A prison sentence for many people will mean losing things dear to them (jobs / homes / ability to live peacefully in their home town / ability for the children not to be forced to leave their school) and that always has a knock on effect for their loved ones whether the family is rich or poor
If people believe social tenants families should be evicted then surely families with mortgages with a rioter living in their home should be evicted too.
Banks should be forced to withdraw the mortgage from the family, the house sold and compensation taken from the profits - to cover the cost of the damage and the extra policing
So if little Gideon runs amok - the entire family should go - why should social renters be the only rioters targetted
Would mortgage holders be so quick to back social renters being evicted when a member of their family is arrested (and not yet found guilty of a crime) if the same is applied to them and mortgages withdrawn if their son is arrested and not yet found guilty of a crime?
Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law - regardless of whether they pay rent or pay a mortgage so surely the punishments should be equal
Personally I do no believe any family should be evicted if a member of the household is arrested..but if this is applied by Wandsworth Council and the family is evicted then banks should be forced to withdraw mortgages too -
That's just ridiculous. If a family keep up repayments they arent in breach of their mortgage agreement and therefore cannot lose their house. If one of the adults in the household is in prison however, chances are they won;t be able to keep up repayments and will lose it that way.
Council houses come with tenancy agreements stating that illegal behaviour by any family member can lead to eviction so if that family have broken their agreement (as long as the person is found guilty of course - it all hinges on that) then the council can seek to evict. One particular family have already broken the agreement anyway by being in arrears and that's just the breaches we know about.
Council housing in London is a hugely valuable resource. It saves low earners thousands of pounds in rent, offers better standards than much of the private renting sector and also more security so people arent forced to move every 6 months. Many people on similar salaries to this family cannot get into council housing and therefore spent a massive % of their salary on private rent with less security and more expense and more upheaval every year.
There's not enough council housing for everyone who needs it on low wages. That's why tenancy agreements enforce minimum standards - because in London at least getting a council house is a big deal. It is a massive benefit and privilege that many other people on the same salary with the same number of children and the same needs will never get.
Hold on a minute.
We're not talking about rioters who are breadwinners being evicted. We aretalking about the entire family surrounding 17 year old rioters being evicted.
And if you privately rent, or own your home, then your income is not going to be affected by your 17 yearold offspring being slung into jail, or to put it another way, you won't lose your home.
Why should people in social housing lose their homes because one person behaved badly? What about everyone else in the family?
But surely this proves the need for banks to be forced to introduce rules and regulations on morgage agreements in the same way as tenancy agreements - after all morgage holders don't own the home - they just get to live in it because a bank loanded them money - we are all equal and surely every family should be subject to the same social clauses
oh dear... another one, thread in campaigns is quite lively tbh. It is a matter of politics and the small print of a standard SH tenancy.
Tory's don't like social housing, tory's need to be seen to be doing something to punish the rioters. Put these two facts together and you can see where we're heading!
By the way CustardCake..are you a mortgage holder by any chance
mortage holder or not custard cake makes a very good point about the 'value' of holding a social tenancy. The lack of social housing is unfair, and that is a fundamental reason why RSL's are going to take this action- to protect their ability to fund the provision of more homes despite the lack of support for doing so from the government.
there is also value in holding a mortgage (especially as so many people are being denied the opportunity to get a mortgage) so surely mortgage holders should have social clauses also
Custardcake is right, of course. Tenants, whether social or private, are subject to the contract they sign when taking out their tenancy agreement to abide by certain rules. Breach those rules, break that contract, and they know their home is at risk. The rules in Wandsworth's case say that if anyone in the household engages in certain antisocial behaviours in the local area, then the tenancy is forfeit. Mortgage holders are subject to different constraints but rules still apply.
The homelessness, therefore, is a punitive consequence of breaching a contract. It is not the punishment for the crime. There is a big difference.
I must admit the case in the news at the moment where the son is 18 years old and is living with his mum doesn't sit comfortably with me.
At 18, he is an adult and responsible for his own behaviour. His mum didn't commit these crimes and isn't responsible.
As a parent I am responsible for my children's behaviour I understand that. So evicting me because I cannot control my 12 year old I can sort of just about understand. But 18!?!?!
But right now I think society and the govt are sending out very powerful messages to the rioters that they were wrong. And amongst that there are bound to be punishments (call it what you will) which don't sit well with others.
Do you think that councils have a duty to evict tenants who behave anti-socially or not? Do you think it is fair on their law-abiding, peaceful neighbours to not evict them?
Do you think that families should not be allowed to be evicted because they are not ALL being anti-social? Thus giving carte blanche to the anti-social people to do whatever they want?
Like it or not, threat of losing their home is one deterrent that will work, unlike prison.
Evicting anti-social tenants will make social housing better, not worse.
Punishment is about rehabilitation and for the greater good of society, amongst otehr things, so what good will it do to evict this family?
Presumably these people read the Ts&Cs of their tenancy before taking the property.
Join the discussion
Please login first.