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 wonder how many of the people commenting on this thread actually have 18 year old (or older) sons and how they can be so positive that their children would never be caught up in the moment and do something stupid.

When does a parent stop being responsible for an adult son? The council do not seem to be saying to the son we shall evict you but to the whole family that they have to go. So an 8 year old girl loses her home. Should a foster family be evicted if the child they are trying to help has escaped their control?

This isn't about supporting looters but about how far families are responsible for their offspring.

But surely there already have been instances of families being evicted under that tenancy clause due to the behaviour of one member of the family.

When it's antisocial behaviour in the tenants own neighbourhood, the whole family is evicted, even if it is only the behaviour of one family member. The whole family suffers then - why not now?

I would be concerned that changing the provisions in the tenancy agreement so you can no longer evict whole families for local anti-social or criminal behaviour would be really, really bad for many communities in the long run.

There doesn't seem to be any information (quite rightly) about the previous history of the household currently facing eviction action. I wouldn't want to campaign for the dilution of council's powers to evict based on a single case on which we don't have the full story.

i don't know why they don't evict the rioter, and leave the rest of the family be.

If they make a directive that the 18 yo may never live in that home again, and if the mother allows him to, then the tenancy agreement comes to an end and the family are out.

My own views are that the young man (in this case) needs to take responsibility for his own actions - and if that means sleeping in a squat or on a park bench, then that will quickly bring home to him the consequences of "shopping - with violence"....it may also ensure that he cannot negatively influence the 8 year old.

The provision for evictions of this type was enacted into law in the 2007 amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.

Presumably any campaign would be calling for repeal?

Incidentally, despite what some have quoted, there is duty for councils to ensure that families with children are not left homeless.

no not a repeal per se.

the cases where anti-social behaviour is applied to families/individuals t oend tenancies, rightly, is where people have been complained about and warned.

Here we are saying because your family member offended once on the other side of town by stealing an item then you will all be made homeless.

Two very differnt scenarios.

so no, not a repeal, just NOT a flagrantly unjustice application of the powers held.

The law as it's stands is to get rid of people who have been terrorising the area in which they live over a length of time, to use such laws to evict people who nipped into a smashed open shop and grabbed a few bits for themselves is not what the law was created for and is a knee jerk reaction, shops get broken into/shop lifted from all the time, they don't invoke this law then, it's all stupid shortsighted knee jerking to make the Daily Fail readers happy.

Maybe the son in this case should offer to do the decent thing and move out, if this would allow his mother and sister to stay.

We don't know enough about this case to know if it is flagrantly unjust.

Would that stop the process though nancy? I'm not sure that would be acceptable to them.

I totally agree with OP, this is a discriminatory measure - those involved are already being punished, by evicting too they are being punished twice for the crime whereas those who own their houses for example are only being punished once - is it fair the millionaires daughter gets less of a punishment for her crimes than the son of the single parent in a council house?

I don't know if it would stop the eviction process - they could be a model family of neighbours from hell - I don't know anything about the case. I do think it's time we got people to take some responsibility for their own actions. If they are just being evicted because of him then the right thing for him to do is say that he will move out voluntarily.

people taht live in private housing will probably be punished twice as they are likely to get the sack. should we protest against people with jobs being sacked if they have to go to prison?

So it's ok if they go and terrorise someone else's neighbourhood? I think ryoko's description is playing down the seriousness of the riots and looting somewhat.

Whole families are already evicted under these powers for terrorising their own neighbourhoods - why not for terrorising whole towns?

Agree with you nancy. It does seem harsh but ultimately this situation exists because too many people in society do not accept their responsibilities (although oddly, they all seem to know their rights)

We don't know enough about this case, is this a decent young man who behaved very stupidly or a yob with parents who have never acted responsibly or taught him decent values.

I suspect the council know a lot more than we do and would not want to campaign against this and let perpetrators escape from their responsibilities by hiding behind their families, hard though that is.

nancy the parents and siblings, or wives and children of the looters in private housing won't be sacked.

This punishes the family, not just the person who committed the crime.

Your two things are not comparable.

Why does an 8yo need to accept responsibility for the actions of her older brother? Why should she lose her home and potentially be separated from her mother?

SardineQueen - if the wage earner gets the sack the rent/mortgage won't get paid and they will be evicted/have the house reposessed. When the bank reposess your house they don't care who lives in it - it is totally comparable

It's not though. We have done all this on another thread.

If a private homeowner's 15yo son gets convicted for this sort of behaviour then how does that affect the parents jobs or mortgage? It doesn't.

Assuming a non-custodial sentence, most people would not lose their jobs anyway. Their employers wouldn't be any the wiser.

In the case we are talking here, it is a 17yo boy who has been accused, and his mother and younger sibling face eviction (with him).

If they were in a private home, the son being accused and even convicted would have no impact on the families home at all.