Eviction of families from local authority, or housing association accommodation on conviction of any family member being involved in riot-related offences.

[Pan]

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 in the vicinity 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?

I would be 100% behind this campaign. Could the campaign cover both evictions and loss of benefits?

here is one link re Nottingham and their new policy

plenty - I don't really know. It wouldn't be 'my' campaign - am requesting MNHQ use their influence/authority/connections to make a voice against the practice of evicting all families where one person has been convicted. I am guessing MN may take a view on benefits, but I am asking for them t o'speak out' on hte eviction issue.

Count me in as well. Really shocked, not only by the punitive measures taken by both councils and courts; but by the overwhelming support (esp.on here)for said measures.

That is true mob rule. It's not a few kids setting light to JD Sports. It's the reactionary masses, drip-fed poison by Murdoch and baying for blood.

My memory may be playing tricks on me, but didn't Cameron promise an end to knee-jerk politics?

you neglect to realise the paper trail that may be behind these evictions. No RSL is their right mind is going to evict an entire family who are the model tenants on the basis of one rogue element HOWEVER if the tenancy is already under threat then yes this is a reasonable last resort.

Whilst I do not want to see anyone homeless, you do not know the facts, you do not know the background, you have never met these families and you do not know the potential volatile nature. I would never sanction a SP order unless there are water-tight grounds and a reason which i believe is a threat to my staff.

If if is a rogue element in an otherwise model tenancy then yes i would seek to remove the older son only in this case although that can be more difficult than an eviction, however i would remind people that over the age of 18 you are 'choosing' to let your adult son live with you (in law they are non-dependants), and whilst i appreciate that it is tough for young people to secure accomodation and be mature enough to support a tenancy surely this is a sign that we need to educate our children to live independantly for ther benefit of society.

In my association we seek possession in all serious and ongoing ASB cases, we do not see why our properties should be used for criminal activity (storing stolen goods??) or that the communities which we seek to build should be torn apart (rioting??) so in fact for the benefit of the majority of our tenants we will take action for reasons far smaller than given here. BUT only if the problem cannot be resolved in any other way.

I would perhaps suggest that using the case here with the 8 year old sister is not a wise move unless someone can give you the facts, you do not know if the tenancy is on a last warning, you do not know if there are parenting issues involving social services, hell- you don't even know if that mother is unfit through drink or drugs... I am not saying that this IS the case, i am merely pointing out that there may be a very valid reason for the harsh action.

I do not want to see a return to the workhouse model that the tories seem so fond of, but neither do i want to see the communities that i have invested time and considerable emotion into being torn apart, and i do think that if riots had taken place in our operating area involving our tenants and properties, then i would be so upset at the lack of respect for the work that we do, that yes I may well see red and take a hard line especially for those tenancies which have provided volatile situations in the past.

evicted families will still be eligible for housing benefit, but they will have to seek and secure a private tenancy. Eviction is not the end of the world, it does not force young children to sleep on the streets, there are always options, however it is a way of showing that you expect certain things from your tenants and respect for communities is certainly at the top of my list.

so in short, a blanket approach is never going to implemented- judges would get really p'd off with it, but RSL's have every right to look at the criminal activity leading to major losses of property, livelihood and security and decide if there are cases in which they would prefer not to have that risk inhabiting one of their valuable resources.

no reallywoundup - I haven;t ignored the 'paper trail' or history involved in particular cases. All of what you say is very sensible, civilised and true.

However, many of the councils likely to be making decisions on eviction (Manchester, Wandsworth, Nottingham that I can point to) are indicating that they will seek to evict on one offence that is riot-related and the whole family will be evicted.

No eviction isn't the end of the world - only the end of the world is that. BUT the fracturing horrible consequences of insecurity and having to move school, lose friends etc is something I'd rather not see you or anyone else under-estimate.

reallywoundup with all due respect you are not the head of wandsworth council or the others taking this line, your assumption that they will only exercise this power where there have already been problems with the family is nothing more than an assumption.

umm, no council is going to make a decision to evict. All a landlord can do is apply to the court for a seeking possession order, it is a judge who will have to decide- and believe me the time that has to go into gathering evidence to get an order through means that the decision is never taken lightly.

I'm with this campaign all the way.

Where the hell are this family supposed to go if they're evicted, and how on earth is this supposed to stop the 17yo from reoffending? I know I'd be really motivated to integrate in a country which took the roof over my mother and younger sister's head away because I was crooked.

(I'm not crooked, by the way.)

Besides, even if he is convicted, what happens then? If it's "minor" enough to be a fine or community service it's ridiculously excessive to evict, and if he goes to prison the family are in the ridiculous position of the 17yo having a roof over his head (albeit a prison roof) while the innocent family have none!

Disgusting. Morbidly disgusting.

Have you seen the sentences being handed down to the people involved in the rioting and looting?

The courts are taking a very hard line. A woman with two children who accepeted a pair of shorts from a friend has gone to prison for 6 months - she wasn't even out on the streets when it was all happening.

I think it is fair to say the courts will take a hard line with these evictions as well.

I have just discovered that New Charter, a HA in Tameside, Greater Manchester are intending to apply for eviction in every such case. Also, this has been the collective decision of all Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in the area.

It's pretty plain that the 'balme-game' is well underway and how LA/HA's are planning to come to eviction decisions is potentially shifting to fit in with the new rules.

blame, obv...

" BUT the fracturing horrible consequences of insecurity and having to move school, lose friends etc is something I'd rather not see you or anyone else under-estimate."

but what about the victims of these crimes, the families who have lost their homes and income- it is not a one sided arguement. How can we say that one family can stay in their home because 'little jonny made a mistake and has a little sister' which made the smith's homeless and without a bean. Every decision has to have a consequence. I do not agree with a blanket eviction policy, however i can see that rsl's are going to have a hell of a job maintaining the trust of their communities without being seen to take action in some cases.

My opinion is based on my background and emotional involvement in the housing sector, without that background i can see that i would possibly take a different view- and in fact my husband has fairly opposing views based on his line of work in the probation service. However due to my job, it is my legal responsibility to ensure the legal and financial integrity of the business for which i have a governing role regardless of personal opinion.

really - I am NOT presenting this as one-sided arguement - IF someone has been a real neighbour nuisance then deal with them under powers already held.

Again, authorities ARE planning to seek eviction for all of the families.

I am wondering how many times I have to type that.

But should little Johny's little sister have to suffer because her big brother did something extraordinarily stupid? Or because someone in the same house stole a handful of sticks of chewing gum? (One of the people involved in the riots got six months for that.)

Seems to me the justice system has gone badly awry. All those all-night sittings full of knackered magistrates, lawyers and judges who haven't had time to think. Someone who sets a fire than burns down a house deserves a prison sentence, someone who is found with a bottle of water or a small amount of chewing gum clearly doesn't. And wouldn't if it had happened outside this context. The chewing gum woman and the water woman should be punished appropriately for what they actually did, not what a whole load of other people did.

really - not sure what you mean by your husbands opinion here - are you saying he is in support of evictions here, or against it?

I am not saying that the little sister SHOULD suffer, just that there are issues here that will affect RSL's decisions. I am sure that if you go out into the affected communities you will find a lot of support for the decisions- sadly that is why the RSL's are having to be harsh- because most SHP's are governed by their service users to an extent.

It's all happening so quickly, I doubt the landlords have had time to consult the communities involved in any meaningful way.

And the chief exec of Wandsworth won't be interested in what tenants have to say. He'll be interested in furthering his own career.

housing officers will have been out day and night- well they should have been... staff engaging with tenants is the best way of capturing the mood. if the councils in question are rushing it then i would be tempted to say they are presenting the orders to court in a slighlty half-hearted way. in my experience an eviction for ASB will take at least three weeks of investigation and preparation. UNLESS there is already an ongoing case?

I have in the past evicted a family with 4 children for smashing the window in a neighbours shed, the parents both worked and the rent was always paid. Now when you look at it from this the eviction was harsh, however what isn't said is thast the teenage children smashed the window of the shed to feed poisoned meat to the dog which had to be kept in the shed by the neighbours because these teenagers were always trying to encourage the dog to attack them so that they could claim 'compo'! you would not believe some of the cases we have to deal with! and unfortunatly once you lose the trust of your residents then you are on a slope to a sink estate where no-one gives a damn any more. I can see both sides, personally i think it is a daft policy to evict ANYONE with an involvement, but equally i can see just how difficult it would be to differentiate the levels of severity.

oh and do remeber that certainly in housing associations, the chief exec is employed and governed by the board of management- which will have a number of tenants sitting on it.

So your point, really, is that you support this policy and the actions of the councils and the statements they have made.

That;s fair enough.

There is no doubt in my mind that the perpetrators should be evicted. How this is workable if they are not the tenant I don't know.

Please count me in Pan, and thank you for starting this thread.

It is beyond unfair to render entire families homeless as a result of the actions of one member.

I'm a single parent to DS and we are LA housed.
However we are so lucky to live in an LA in which there are decent areas; we live in a small village that does not have the same problems that were rife on the large estate that we used to live on. By moving out to the village I have further limited the negative influences on my teenage DS. If our LA only had properties in trouble ridden estates we would not have had the oppotunity to move. Once we moved my career has gone from strength to strength, because I am able to sleep at night and therefore am better at my job. My car has not been touched once since moving here, so I am able to get into my car and go to work every day, unlike where we lived before.
I have no doubt that if I was parenting my child in a less fortunate area, my job as a parent would be so much harder, and I do not support homelessness as a punishment for parents who have not been as fortunate (please do not think I am ignoring that poor parenting is also an issue with many of these cases) and certainly am dead against the punishment of vulnerable family members.

Where we live we have hope. In spite of the recession there are jobs, DS is at a great school, with a nearby brilliant college. Because I am working I am in a much stronger position to support DS through all his studies and to help him learn to drive.
If we were living in a troubled area DS would be more likely to have negative influences; his school may not be as good, and might even feel like a dangerous place to be; job prospects may be daunting. DS is not regularly stopped and searched by police, his relationship with police is fine because he has not been treated as a potential criminal. He wears typical teenage clothes (hoodie, trainers, baggy jeans etc) and would be more likely to have his faith in police damaged if he was in an area where stop and searches are every day occurences.

Like I said, we have hope, and that is hugely important. Without hope what have you got?

as soupy says really- very very difficult to actually achieve though. sadly the innocent tenants ARE in breach of their tenancy if they are allowing any criminal activity to take place on the property regardless of whether the children are 'adult' or not. How they are going to prove this however is a different matter unless there is a criminal investigation to provide concrete evidence. dodgy dodgy ground for the RSL's involved- we might see a few resignations soon.

I think the families of the offenders will need to be monitored more closely maybe by a probation officer or a social worker. Maybe eviction should be the last resort but I think the LA does need to get tough and the parents need to support the LA.

I think this should also apply to families whose children cause distress to the neighbours as in reallywoundup's case and where people are scared to 'grass' them up.