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've followed this thread since posting further up, but the debate seems have rather spiralled into something which does not resemble the actual picture on the ground. I'm a local government solicitor (but I also act for RSLs) specialising in anti social behaviour with 10 years experience in this area. Apologies for the law lecture in advance

Councils/RSLs do not make a decision to evict a tenant - they have to serve a notice and then make their case to the County Court, the District Judge decides. So it doesn't matter was the CEX, Housing Officer or politicians think - if the judge does not think that the statutory grounds have been made out or that it's not reasonable to make an immediate order for possession then there will be NO EVICTION.

The provisions that the Councils are using are NOT NEW. Councils and RSLs have been able to serve a notice seeking possession on the grounds of nuisance, anti social behaviour or criminal activity for a considerable period of time. Council's and RSL's use them sparingly because it's expensive and difficult to get a case together. Even if they didn't the County Court would not entertain weak cases.

Council's/RSLs generally use 3 grounds for dealing with anti social behaviour;

1.Breach of a term of the tenancy agreement - there will usually be a number of conditions about antisocial behaviour in the TA OR

2.Nuisance or annoyance to someone in the locality of the dwellinghouse OR

3.Indictable offence committed in, or in the locality of the dwellinghouse.

In the first two cases, the court will be looking for a repeated pattern of behaviour, so a one - off incident is extremely unlikely to mean an order being granted. Additionally in the 2 and 3rd cases there MUST be a link between the behaviour and the local area, so if an offence in another area cannot be used as evidence to prove either of those grounds. In relation to the first ground the TA terms themselves usually make the link between the dwellinghouse and the behaviour).

The third ground also ONLY relates to indictable offences (offences that can only be tried by the Crown Court - it was introduced to deal with drug trafficking)which is NOT THEFT, so it could not be used for minor offences.

In ALL of the above cases even if the Council/RSL can show that the ground has been proven - the court still needs to believe that it is REASONABLE to make an order for possession. This is where an examination of previous behaviour, warnings, willingness to change, personal circumstances, personal culpability, other people in the household come in. The DJ will weigh all of those considerations up in deciding whether to grant an order. Even if it is reasonable to make an order it can be suspended (ie it won't take effect unless the Tenant breaches the terms of the order) - so they stay in the property.

There is no way that a Court would evict a tenant, let alone children from a property where there has not been serious, persistent anti social behaviour/criminality and there was no intention on behalf of the tenant to put things right. It does not happen and there is a body of caselaw which has been built up which the DJs follow.

Is it reasonable to send someone with no previous convictions to prison for 6 months for stealing a bottle of water?

No.

Yes the courts did it.

I find the blind faith in the system to act "reasonably" touching but naive.

Yet the courts did it, that should read.

And I don't mean to sound argumentative, really I don't. But these rules can be bent and shaped to political ends, the courts can make unexpected decisions. If it's a possibility that innocent people will lose their homes over someone doing something stupid, and in the scheme of things minor (bottle of water, pair of trainers) then it needs talking about.

"The provisions that the Councils are using are NOT NEW. Councils and RSLs have been able to serve a notice seeking possession on the grounds of nuisance, anti social behaviour or criminal activity for a considerable period of time." - yes they have, and we know this and it is reasonably used ,and with, sometimes, some frustration felt by both the other tenants and the RSL.

But here again we are moving to a different scenario. In the words of Dorothy, "we aren't in Kansas any more, Toto".

Of course you are right, it is up to a civil court judge to make that decision. But such people are also swayed by the preception of the public and that what is acceptable and not so. The threshold for what is 'acceptable/reasonable' is being lowered massively.

Also, it isn't just the experience of an eviction - it's the 'threat' caused by a notice to do so that causes unjust stress to a family - and as really provides evidence of, as I can, this can take many months.

MissBee - what you say is very valuable, as someone who is actually in court doing this. It is more than a bit concerning that we are having to rely on the presence of your honours to potentially provide a bulwark against a blame-game of social housing tenants. But we knew this anyway. I am suggesting that MN could make a voice that means we don't have, esentially, all of the family in the 'homelessness dock' as a revenge-justice so keenly desired by some RSLs and it seems this govt.

To be fair you're talking about the criminal courts, they are a totally different system etc.

Not quite blind faith, just with the benefit of day to day experience over a decade

I don't agree Pan

If the Govt does not change the legislation then the situational will be plus ca change in the Court. They are independent, they don't have an agenda and they do hold the line.

also the legistalative proposed changes make it possible to take into consideration actions outside of the locality - not unreasonable, but if the condition of 'on conviction' means exactly that, we could have many people being convicted well down the time-line and dragging their othe family members into this dock.

MissBee - I strangley do have a sort of faith in DJs to come to reasonable decisions. When they come to magistrates courts they are a breath of fresh air. But in this social justice question we really should not be having to rely on them.

erm.. they don't, with respect. Who appoints judges? Who pays them? How 'careerist' are they? "Independence of the judiciary" is a pretty faulty concept.

FWIW I have just emailed MNHQ asking for their consideration over this. If they say "sorry Pan, too messy" then that's understandable, for this forum. They may wish to add a comment here.

Flogging and dead horse come to mind.

Missbeehiving - so how come last August just 10% of people accused of crimes of similar seriousness were remanded, whereas since the riots it has been 65% (BBC News tonight)? If the courts are immune to political pressure, why has the proportion remanded gone up so massively?

edam - that figure is consistent with the remands in Manchester. The staff who I see have come back to me with v. strange tales regarding events in Manchester Mags. Court. No proper prep. of cases, just a charge sheet to warrant commencement of a hearing. DJs happy to accept a swerving of acceptable standards re CPS evidence. Remand decisons going through on the nod.

I think MissBees point is about Civil Courts tho'. But the theme across courts doesn't fill one with a confidence of justice being applied.

Pan - it really worries me that the courts seem to be very happy to dispense rough justice, in haste, by knackered people acting without all the relevant information. Isn't ensuring justice is actually done to proper standards supposed to be what the courts are actually for?

I guess they assume since many of these people are a. poor and b. not terribly well educated and c. first time offenders who don't know the system, then there won't be too many appeals... but I do hope some of the families DO challenge these decisions.

yes - at lunch time on BBC M/c TV a defence sols from the company 'Olliers'. a well established MCMC company, spoke of the derailment of practices whereby defendants were remanded without any sense of proper representation, and he spoke of the harshness of penalties re imprisonment which, whilst were inside the Sentencing Guidance Council's guidance, were not warranted, in his opinion regarding the element of 'aggrevation'. Even in the SGC guidance, 'riot' does not appear, so DJs 'make it up'.

This is headline grabbing bullshit the LA.

I think the offender should be made to clean up their neighbourhood if they are a nuisance, give them some pride in where they live.

Rioters can be punished but whole families? Nuts.

If you start an epetition pan I'll sign.

Thanks PP.

I read this morning that sentencers are being encouraged to 'throw the rule book away'. Erm..that means 'the law'. So sentencers are being asked to behave as lawlessly as the offenders in pursuance of Old Testament justice.

The consequence to civil courts decisions are obv re evictions. The case body that MissBee rightly points to can be happily set aside.

tbh an epetition wouldn't be very effective, I don't think - the public are still too horrified at the recent events ( understandably). But at a time when we need really cool-thinking heads, those 'heads' are being urged to 'stop thinking'.

re sentencing - yes, giving out the maximum hours allowed of Community Payback i.e 300 hours,( combined with any other requirement relevant) which is then spent specifically at the scene, and with people they harmed, would have a 'restorative' effect.

MissBeehiving Thank you for the law lecture, I found it useful and feel reassured to some extent. However it is also quite clear to me that the courts are not independent of government but are an arm of it. Yes there is a pretence at separation and some judges do take that more seriously than others. The behaviour of the courts recently has made it clearer than usual that judges are not as independent as they claim.

How do you feel about Wandworth starting the eviction process before their tenant's son was convicted? Isn't that making a mockery of innocent until found guilty? Isn't this going to encourage some people to contest something they would previously have pleaded guilty to because of the potential consequences for their family? If these cases go before a jury (can they?) doesn't it decrease the prospect of conviction if jurors think they are making a whole family homeless?

Does unfair contract law apply to tenancy agreements?

Still here, reading and supporting, I am surprised this thread hasn't had more posts.

Cut and pasted from the other thread - at Pan's request.

My take on this is what do you want to achieve? Do you just want to punish?
Or do you want to send a message to other would-be offenders? I think this is a knee-jerk, simplistic reaction and whilst it will no doubt prove very popular with a lot of people, I really don't see that it will achieve much. It certainly won't save money. These people will still have to be housed. Also, I don't think it will deter others from committing crimes of this nature. Some of the looting was carefully planned by gangs, but a lot of it was carried out by impulsive individuals who saw an opportunity and who were caught up in the frenzy. Not that I'm excusing it - there really is no excuse. But if we want to prevent similar mass destruction occurring again I think we are going to have to come up with some more imaginative strategies than taking away peoples homes.

Thank you ladylush- nice and succinct.

I noted that Judge Gilbard at M/c Crown Court stated he had no restraint in ignoring previous sentencing habit. As I said last night that too gives a message to DJs in civil courts re eviction decision-making.

I have mailed MNHQ for a bit of guidance but without a response as yet - just asking 'is it worth continuing this?' - a sort of "should we stay or should we go?", or just hang around in the hallway outside waiting for developments.

bad time for some of us. This concerns me but not nearly as much as the exam results due out on Thursday.

Well the thread seems to be drying up, and MNHQ haven't responded in being asked for a bit of guidance. So for me I am going to stop posting, unless MN gives an indication it will be worthwhile continuing. Again, big thanks to posters who have contributed.
I will make connection with the local law centres in M/c - they do take on civil cases, and I am sure will appreciate the perspectives offered here. Thanks.

It really has been a truly great discussion, its a shame MNHQ haven't answered Pan.

Pan- further to your point on monday, the councillor with responsibility for Housing in Birmingham (Con) already called for evictions of convicted looters/rioters last week. John Hemming (LD, Birmingham South Yardley) appears to be in support of this, if tenancy holder is culpable.

Thanks Captain - he sounds like a really, well-thought out individual.

At a time of social fracturing, we need cool heads with social cohesion a fore-thought.