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?

Its a difficult one but we don't know all the history behind this eviction only whats in the media. And the media will only tell you as much as they want you to know.

I agree that any adults who were involved in the riots should lose their benefits and council housing, after all many people have lost their homes, livelihoods and some have even lost their lives as a result of their actions.

In the case that children were involved that's more difficult. The council could just evict the 18 year old and leave the rest of the family but who's to say that his mother won't let him continue to live there anyway?

I'd prefer to know that my tax was going to helping the people that have been affcted by these riots rather than continue to support those who were involved - after all if any of the rioters that had jobs are caught I'd expect them to lose their jobs and end up on benefits and why should I support them?

I also think the reason so many got involved is because they weren't afraid of being caught and going to prison whereas losing your home and benefits is a whole different matter and hopefully will deter this in the future!

It's not just the one member thing, it's the huge double attack on those who are supported and who have personally or through association been associated with the riots.

If you have a job and own a house, and are convicted of involvement, you serve your sentence, pay your fine and return to your life. You can even use your employment as sign of previous good character and as an argument against a custodial sentence. You may find employment terminated or you may not, depending on the nature of the crime and its relevance.

If, on the other hand, you are on benefits or in supported housing and do exactly the same thing, your future life will be shattered beyond recovery if these measures are seen through. You have nowhere to go. It is a higher price to pay for the same crime, and that can't be right.

And, without condoning (since I'd like both punished) I have to say that if anyone should be paying a higher price for nicking a TV it should be those who could have bought it anyway, not those who couldn't.

Can I do a quick round up of the points made in support of the Original Post:

• looting and rioting is disgusting - the courts have the powers to deal with them and they are certainly doing that.

• no matter what has been said above about 'we don't know the detail', or 'wait and see', numerous LAs and HAs are saying they WILL seek eviction from civil courts where any member of a family who are their tenants have been convicted of riot-related offences, no matter where it occured. We have no reason to believe they won't do that if they say they will.

• this measure will fall on ALL family members, even the innocent ones who were equalled appallled by the offending.

• this brings with it impending homelessness for all of the family with all of the insecurity and fracturing effects that having nowhere to live, or having to move away from your home area, incl schooling.

• authorities have powers to reasonable apply for eviction where there has been prior anti-social behaviour. Those powers are not compromised in any way.

• this measure discriminates against those people in 'social housing', as other people will not have to face the prospect of homelessness. This is where the criminal court system meets the civil court system, the former of which 'private residents' will not have to face.

• the levels of offending varied massively, but LAs etc are wishing to ignore this and make a blanket one size fits all measure.

• the effect will be to make 'parenting much harder' in these circs, contrary to MN's ethos of making parenting easier. There is also the very clear prospect that the measure will fall v. heavily on single parent households.

• overall, I think, it's part of the blame-game culture which is developing, and people who live in 'social housing' are an easy target.

So do please say so if you agree that MN should use it's position to be a voice in the media against this new practice which authorities are proposing to apply.

< I type all of this out to cut n' paste it further down if needs be.>

Pan - spot on. I hope MN listen.

have we had a massive surge of private landlord declaring that 'they would never evict their tenants for such a thing'??

Cos seriously, they don't really even need a reason to evict you (or certainly never need to prove it!)- and it'd be foolish to think that private landlords aren't going to do it too!

I wouldn't evict my tenant for stealing a bottle of water or something like that. Not if he kept my flat in good nick and paid his money on time.

Stuff happens. People do stupid things.I don't think the people who have been involved at the more minor end of the scale actually deserve to have their lives ruined.

Let alone their families.

I've not read the thread because I find all the baying for blood depressing, but to answer the op, I'm in.

I've not read the thread because I find all the baying for blood depressing, but to answer the op, I'm in.

reallywoundup - I'm afraid I think you are being a little naive as far as private landlords are concerned. What matters to them is the money in the bank each month. So, eviction for being involved in the riots if your rent is up to date and no problems that are giving them hassle? No chance. Eviction, because this is a handy excuse for their own purposes? Probably if they could find some law or public panic to hide behnid.

but the councils are not saying that they WILL evict everyone- it is a matter of the way it is worded- they will SEEK to start eviction processes- at the end of the day if there is a breach of tenancy there is a legal obligation- it is a contract. The evictions will be governed by the judiciary- and believe me just because it is presented doesn't mean it will happen. You're targeting the RSL's here when ultimatly they are performing their legal duty, whether those decisions are upheld is NOT in their hands.

reallywoundup the young man in the Wandsworth case was arrested for attempted burglary - so he didn't manage to get anything to take home to his family and we don't know if he has ever done so before. Can you reassure me that the council does not have the right to evict an 8 year old child because her adult brother, possibly without the mother's knowledge or approval, got involved in a crime? I don't believe you can. I do not wish them to have that power because powers are not always used responsibly. The way in which these powers are being talked about is NOT reassuring, every case should be considered carefully not a knee jerk we will evict because we can.

I'm still not clear what actually happens to a family evicted like this if they can't find a private landlord - the brother will probably be in prison (and hence housed) while it seems his innocent sister could be in care. As for the mother - she'd have been better off if she'd thrown a brick through a window and got herself housed at taxpayers' expense.

Also if my tenant got a non-custodial sentence, chances are I would never even know.

So no I don't think private landlords will be taking an automatic "tough line" and evicting these people for lots of reasons.

I agree with you Pan.

Evictions are NOT a step forward in rebuilding these communities and attempting to future proof these areas against further riots.

I can't remember Cameron saying he was evicted when he trashed restaurants as a Member of Oxford's Bullingham club?!

This measure would effect those already on their knees, further disenfranchising them from society and causing their resentment to be even further entrenched.

Look at the Norwegian response to the Breivik Shootings/Bombs, then compare it to the same old Daily Fail knee jerk reactionism over here. the world is watching us (my Norwegian inlaws rang, translating it as "england is at war") and watching our response....

I agree that the final decision lies with the courts. However, this post is about the principle of even starting those proceedings. If a social landlord has problems with a tenant there are ways to deal with it already and it is about the effect on their immediate neighbours. They should not be hiding behind the riots to do the work for them. There can be no justification in a democratic society for the application of multiple punishments. Rioters will be dealt with by the courts for the crime they committed.

I find it hard to reconcile MPs and bankers who took thousands from the taxpayer with imprisoning someone for receiving a pair of stolen shorts or nicking some trainers.

Why is white- collar crime not a crime?

I'm not reassured by the facts these evictions will be going through the courts. Isn't legal aid being cut?..............

ah yes but if you saw your tenant on tv running down the high street with a flat screen tv stolen during the riots... i would seek to evict on the grounds that i would not trust that tenant with my belongings in his care.

And on the eviction grounds, criminal activity within the boundaries of the property are grounds for seeking possession. that means (clearly this would be incredibly pedantic) if a phone call was taken in the garden, arranging to meet to join the riots then activity has taken place. Attempted burglary is hardly a minor mistake though, it's the fundamental difference between knowing right from wrong

if tenants are evicted they are eligable to 28 days temporary accomodation provided by the council (usually b&b) that is 28 days after they are actually evicted which is not going to be the day it goes to court btw. Agencies will be involved to re-house the family with the involvement of social services etc, there are scheme's for paying bonds to landlords and credit union style loans/ budgeting loans to pay rent in advance. It's not a case of stamped by the judge... off you trot. Most tenants that we have to evict find alternative accomodation within days with the help of a re-settlement officer. Just because they are not welcome (for whatever reason) in our properties does not mean that we want to see them in the gutter- often it is a legal duty or a decision for the good of the local area.

So if they are going to be rehousedanyway what's the point of eviction in the first place? It's only going to cost the taxpayer more money...or does it mean you can then house these tenants in the crappy housing rather than the decent stock?

no once a tenant is evicted they will not be housed permenantly in LA or HA stock, they will be required to maintain a tenancy with a private landlord.

"at the end of the day if there is a breach of tenancy there is a legal obligation- it is a contract. The evictions will be governed by the judiciary- and believe me just because it is presented doesn't mean it will happen. You're targeting the RSL's here when ultimatly they are performing their legal duty, whether those decisions are upheld is NOT in their hands."

This is not true surely? If someone breaks their contact does the other person have to start eviction proceedings? Surely there is room for conversation and other actions, rather than going straight to court?

I don't believe that the councils are forced by the contract itself to act in a specific way when things happen, surely. That seems illogical and highly inflexible.

Good point about legal aid, opinionated.

"often it is a legal duty or a decision for the good of the local area."

I can totally see that if someone is running a brothel or crack den or just exhibiting antisocial behaviour - horse in front room, parties 24/7 then eviction is in order.

But - those imprisoned will lose benefits and housing anyway (being housed for £14,000 per annum At Her Majesty's Pleasure) I do not see what good it is doing the local area to evict people who have been involved in looting or whose siblings/children have done it.

LA's are run using public funds, HA's have more flexibility but yes under the letter of the legal framework a breach of contract is an auditable process and therefore will affect the PI's and gearing of the organisation if it is identified and not addressed (local councillors are buggers for bringing up cases- so there is very little chance that the LA can get away with saying that they knew nothing of it!).
If central government (and lets face it they are pulling the strings here) give the word then the LA's have to do it or they lose funding through lack of performance, therefore thousands of other families are put at risk.