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?

Seems to me that these clauses existed because landlords had a responsibility to all their tenants, which might mean they were legally and morally expected to act against an individual tenant who threatened the others' safety or housing quality. They were therefore rooted in housing concerns.

That's not the same as nebulous ideas of good behaviour to a much broader community. It seems rather hard to show that someone looting a shop four miles away has threatened the safety, privacy or comfort of other tenants in their homes, which is surely all the clauses were supposed to be about.

So you are saying that local authorities have no choice about evicting entire families if one of them does something wrong?

So if eg a 15yo girl steals a pencil from WHSmiths and is caught, her entire family have eviction proceedings brought against them as a matter of course?

There is no room for any leeway, flexibility or taking circumstances into account?

I simply don't believe you, sorry.

I don't know all the answers here I'm afraid, I run a welsh housing association which has very little chance of ever needing to take such sanctions thankfully, i am just trying to explain how tied up the sector is in red tape and legality and how your campaign really isn't going to be able to achieve anything if aimed at the SHP's because it is not them that are holding the cards but the government and judiciary.

We have a lawyer sitting in the office permenantly because there are so many ways in which it is so easy to slip up. I face the daily threat that one bad decision can ruin my career and the careers of those working around me- and because of that it is difficult to have 'flexibilty' because "sorry your Honour, I didn't take the action specified in the legal procedures, but it was because..." isn't going to keep me out of prison!

yes AdelofBlois - so using any offence to provide a basis for eviction is well beyond accepted practice, and can only be interpreted as a sort of social revenge-justice, aimed at people who are in a vulnerbale position.

yes but stealing a pencil is not being involved in an act of terrorism, whether it was looting or violence during riots where property was vandalised and lives were lost, it is quite a different matter to immature shoplifting do you not think!

Wandsworth council did fuck-all about the crack dens on the Winstanley estate when I lived nearby. So I simply don't believe that they are obliged to start eviction proceedings against someone who half-inched a flatscreen TV - or a bottle of water or multi-pack of Walkers crisps like some of those who have been prosecuted.

so that was 'an act of terrorism??'

give me a break.

I want the people who set fire to homes and businesses to be caught and jailed, I want proportionate justice for the hawkers and looters.

the riots are being covered by the terrorism act! it's ridiculous and i agree that it is disproportionate- BUT where do you draw the line? it's easier for the sake of covering their backs to throw everything into to court and leave it to the judges! like i said before the judges will get p'd off soon and there'll be a piece of government policy brought out specifying where to draw the line- until then the sector needs to jump when government tells them to! sad but true!

Judges are appointed to serve us in determining sentences according to the law and to make new law. That is their job, to ensure that people get a fair trial and justice is served.

There is a legal framework already there why not allow our legal system to do its job.

I know it's by-the-by, but as a Personal Tutor at several universities, somewhat analogous cases (housing provided, clauses for good behaviour, breaches of aceptbale conduct) were a recurrent feature of my past life.

After a long time arguing morally, it became obvious to me that that sector at least had, through case law and student litigation, developed a fairly standard set of case law-housing could be withdrawn if the student used it anti-socially in ways which affected their neighbours. It could not be withdrawn for academic misconduct (unless the student were expelled). It might be withdrawn if the student engaged in activity-legal or otherwise-beyond the room-but usually only if the neighbours were particularly affected (e.g. an assault in a bar in town or unacceptable behaviour in a seminar). So tight did the system seem, that many deans and senior tutors were in the practice of fishing for academic complaint against troublesome tenants-thinking expulsion or suspension on those grounds easier than pushing through on the 'good behaviour' clause.

A different end of the social spectrum, but instructive i think that a student rioter would be expelled for academic misconduct if given a custodial sentence (failure to attend seminars/exams) not for the rioting. Wonder how far those guidelines reflect the wealth and litigious nature of student parents, and that the corresponding lack of those qualities in HA and council tenants

reallywoundup - what do you mean the offences are being 'covered by the terrorism act'? I don't knowwhat that means. The offences being charged I have heard about are under the standard acts ( burlglary, robbery, arson that sort of thing). Haven't heard of terrorism being involved here. Any linkies??

A significant other thing is the liklihood of family members handing in offenders to the police for prosecution IF the threat of eviction is the reward they will receive. In that position, if the offence was relatively minor it would make me think twice, and poss three times.

Count me in. Horrifying stuff

Have we all finished on here? Any more for any more?

ok couple of things

firstly pan have you got a link to the new charter HA stuff you mentioned?

secondly grant schapps (arsehole) is proposing to 'extend' powers to evict to includde 'out of area'

so in theory at least......... the stealing a pencil from smiths could lead to eviction.

it won't though.

i'll tell you why - the riot evictions are a political game, to evict rioters looks good for the tories becuase brain deads people are not thinking of 12 year olds stealing a bag of crisps or whatever. it is much more complicated.

and this is all about the riots.

of course this 'extension' from arsehole schapps could be a further tool to councils and HA staff to evict persistant perpatrators, but no judge

and i bet my arse on this...no judge, is going to evict a family on the theft of a pencil from whsmith - in isolation.

--

i cant find a housing assocition who is going to evict, i have found 'calls' for HA to evict and such. i will be watching with a great deal of interest, i am sure it will happen

but as has been mentioned- remember a chief exec of a HA is responsible usually to a board - which usually has tenants on

no I've no link to it custardo - I did get a call from a friend who works over in Tameside ( the next borough to where I live) this morning ( just before posting), and, in the chat about life and all, she brought up the news that New Charter will be seeking evictions. ( she works in a partnership agency) - there is also a link somewhere that indicates ALL RSLs in G/t MAnchester will be following the same policy.

I haven't seen anyone 'calling' for LA/RSL to do this - I have only seen lots of stuff on the bbc website national and local, indicating this will be followed through, by, so far Salford, M/c, Fulham, Nottingham and a couple of others.

also having tenants on a board - is that supposed to be some sort of 'safeguard' against this happening?

btw New Charter bought up just about all of Tameside's housing stock - a couple of other smaller ones eg Irwell Valley got some, but the vast majority are NC housing.

pan- you say that about having tenants on board as if it's a bloody head nod! I am scared witless of not meeting the expectations of my board- they have complete control for the governance of the association- that means that yes, my tenants have a very real deciding force here!

reallywoundup - I am only positing that the presence of tenants on a board has no reliability when considering if the evictions in these circs are warranted. That sounds more than reasonable, doesn't it? The tenant reps are as likely to agree with the measure as to not.

no pan it will make absolutely bugger all difference when deciding if an eviction is warranted, for two reasons- 1)the board is not operational ie, it does not get involved in specific cases unless asked to by the executive team, however the executive team will ask for direction on the basis of a majority rule 2) the HA's are not making the decisions.

it is interesting to see all the differing views here and also very telling that there are two people who either are or have been in the not too distant past, housing proffesionals, and yet you assume to know more about how LA's, HA's and ALMO's operate and the relative rights and wrongs of how a political society is run, you have never experienced the link between housing and politics first hand. We have, and that is how we know what is pushing these 'headlines'.

Fulham

General item This one is slightly out of date as it only talks of councils considering the move - we now know that they are planning to apply for eviction.

I do beg your patience, reallywoundup.

I do know that boards are operational and do not get involved in specific cases - this is how org.s work. A shift in policy, such as this may involve the board and I was indicating the tenants reps may not disagree with it.

I also happily know that HAs do not make the decisions - that is the right of the Civil Courts - this is not "news just in".

This thread does have differing views though numerically there is a majority in support of it, I think Yourself and custardo remain sceptical, as is your choice. BUT..and this is a bit of a big but..you don't have to have experience of running or working in a HA to be able to decide if applying to make families homless in these circumstances is fair, just, or even civilised.

And I DO have experience of the political world of housing and homelessness - this is where I started my working life - in hostels for the homeless under the auspices of a local authority.

I do reject your post, and how it is couched for the above reasons.

pan you are linking to items which will not help you to take this further. Do not target the organisations which are being given directive's from above. You are shooting the messenger, LA's and HA's are not the enemy here.

If i put myself in the position of a london borough director (a position i would not put myself in for all the tea in china in the real world btw) i i do not take the firm line that is being fed to me by the goverment who provide my funding... I lose financial stability, my gearing ratios rocket, any commercial investors (in the case of HA's) pull out and i am left with no funds to complete the decent homes program or take on any development... that affects every single household that lives in one of our properties, it de-stabalises our legal state as a provident society or charitable organisation because we are not fulfilling our legal and financial obligations. We are then forced to transfer our stock to a private company who will not have to act within the 'social housing' structure. Rents will rise disproportionatly to inflation, properties will be left in disrepair and potentially leave my service users in danger. Which would you choose- tow the line and leave it to a judge to decide on the individual merits or potentially leave 13,000 tenants at the mercy of an unscrupulous system?

I have never said that this decision is fair- i have in fact noted that i do not agree with a blanket eviction policy. However you are not apreciating the real picture here, it is a political game and we as RSL's are pawns.

really - I have never said 'who are the enemy here' - I am merely asking MN t oconsider raising a public voice against the practice outlined - the links I used were to illustrate (esp. as custardo was sceptical) that HAs were keen to 'get started' or I think one of them says "we will give it a go" and of course Wands are starting the process even prior ot a conviction.

I haven't just wandered in off the street and started posting on this - I too have a lot of life and work experience as a professional which led me to id this issue as quite important.

pan you are targeting LA's and HA's, it is the policies written by the government that you need to be focussing on, not news articles stating that LA's are going to tow the party line.

And i understand that you believe it is wrong- hell so do I, but I know from within that i am endangering a whole lot more than one single family if i do not take the action asked of me by my funders. There will inevitably be casualties, but there were innocent casualties in the riots too. the Tories will have no sympathy for residents of social housing- they don't want it to exist, they'd probably be quite happy if the transfer of stock to a private company scenario came to fruition. You have a bug to bear with the tories and their wishes, not with the people who are trying to provide safe, well maintained, affordable communities with hard political pressure and very little government support.

I'd signpost you to a national tenants voice organisation who may be able to give you facts and case studies... but sadly the tories cut the funding meaning that it no longer exists- can you see where i'm going here!

a united voice sounds brilliant and i'm all for it providing you get the policy change from the government without predjudicing the sector as a whole, but Dave's not going to listen- none of his mates are affected, Nick's too busy learning how to be Dave- so he's not going to help either.