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?

And for what it's worth I'm not saying the sister should take resposibility for her brother - he should take responsibility for himself - no doubt when out during the riot he thought was being a "big man", now that he is seeing his family face the prospect of being made homeless he should be a real man, do the decent thing and move out voluntarliy

But nancy there has been no suggestion that him moving out will help his family in any way at all. The statement from the head of wandsworth council doesn't mention anything like that. In fact he states that as it's an eviction they are "intentioally homesless" and the council will have no responsibility to rehome any of them. He doesn't say what will happen to the younger child in all this, maybe she will be taken into care away from her mother.

So really the mother and child are being very firmly punished for the actions of this boy.

I just think that the people who did wrong should face the consequences, and it is positively victorian to turf whole families out onto the streets as one of their number is a bad'un.

Sign me up Pan, I have been stewing about this all day. Well done for highlighting the issue. It's only the poorest who will be affected - presumably those in privately rented accommodation or who are home-owners will not be affected. One law for the rich etc. And what about the principle of only being punished if you have committed an offence?

Actions have consequences. With human rights should come human responsibilities. We all seem to have forgotten that when we are bleating about the ciminal underclass being booted out of state-funded housing.

Anyone who thinks it is a good think that a young child will lose their home because of the actions of someone who they have absolutely no influence over has had an empathy bypass IMO.

Just saying, like.

We are bleating about children and other vulnerable people losing their homes, and not having anywhere to go.

Honestly.

Why don't they just boot out the person who committed the crime.

Why would the sister go into care - the mum will have to find privately rented accomodation - just like the millions of other people that are not lucky enough to get a council house.

SQ: could you link the statement about "intentionally homeless"? The amendments to the Criminal Justice Act which permitted such evictions also includes a duty on councils to rehouse families where there are children.

And Wandsworth haven't named the individual concerned. Other press reporting focussed on someone who is reported to be 18. Is there a second case with a 17 year old?

pan could you link the report which said he had gone across town to commit the alleged offences. I've seen nothing that gives either his address or the location of the incidents.

Because the council will have no obligation to house them because they are intentionally homeless.

The council leader said that their obligation towards the family "would cease".

While I can see that they can do that to the mum, I think they will still be obliged to find somewhere for the child to live due to her age.

custardcake if your 18yo son had been charged with these offences, how exactly would that lead to the catalogue of disaster you have written? People don't lose their jobs because their children get into trouble.

meditrina - I hadn't posted that. I had said that so far out of the people processed at courts, 70% live nowhere near where they offended.

this is important as 1. the 'good beaviour clauses', (which to my mind are absolutley correct) were not designed to cause eviction of anyone committing any offence. and 2. LA do not take responsibility for anti-social behaviour in other boroughs. Never have.

so in these cases LA are going well beyond the custom and practice of previous application of the clauses. It;s a bit of grandstanding and showing how 'tough' they can be with an entire absence of thought on the injustice and very practicle problems associated with this twisted application.

SQ: that'll be the statement I'm after then! Could you link it? Thanks!

It is no more heartless now than it was when it happened prior to the riots.

If, say, in June, said 18yr old boy had terrorised his own neighbourhood enough to warrant eviction, then the whole family, including 8yr old would have been evicted, yes?

here

"Wandsworth council's leader, Ravi Govindia, said that, in signing a tenancy agreement, tenants had agreed not to take part in activities that could jeopardise their housing. The council felt it had the power to terminate the agreement against the tenant, despite the fact that she was not involved in the riots and her son has only been charged, not been convicted.

"The mother can challenge the notice-seeking process," he said. "The tenancy agreement does not just apply to the mother but the entire household."

He said she would be deemed to have made herself deliberately homeless. "Then our obligation would be at an end. She signed the contract in which she and her household would agree the terms of the contract.""

And later

"He had talked to a mother on the Pembury estate who was was "terrified that she and her younger child would be made homeless as a result of her 17-year-old who she could not keep under control". He added: "This is not simple. We have to be very careful.""

But that is maybe a different case to the 18yo? Not sure as they are not allowed to give name and so the 18yo and 17yo could be one and the same IYSWIM.

Daphne I think it was usually used when there were whole "problem families" who made life hell for people over a period of time.

Rather than a one-off where one of the children nicked a pair of trainers IYSWIM.

Custard don't be silly of course you wouldn't murder your son.

My point is that if your son did something like this, your family housing situation would be unaffected. For these people in that same situation they will lose their home.

I am not sure what the point about council housing = not necessarily poor is about. Are you suggesting that these families who are being evicted will on the whole be able to go and rent privately and pay for it themselves? That's a bit more of a leap than assuming that they probably won't, surely?

Pan: I think that is why I was confused - the general statistic may be probably less applicable in a borough where the major disturbances occurred, and there is no information on either the defendant's address or the location of the alleged offences.

Assuming widespread civil action against non-local crimes seems to be quite different to "violent disturbance" (one of the charges he faces) which is more likely than not to be local.

I think there's a danger of bogeymen here.

terrified that she and her younger child would be made homeless as a result of her 17-year-old who she could not keep under control".

This suggests that it is not the first time the boy has been in trouble - if your child had done something as a one off moment of madness you are very unlikely to say you can't keep them under control.

I give a shit ,but thats because I don't fit the new daily mail comments page MN demographic

Count me in. It is right that convicted criminals should face sanctions, but they should not be harsher for those in HA or council housing, and it is draconian to punish their family members

I think that's a bit of a stretch nancy.

Even if it were true, I also don't see that that warrants punishing the younger child. Or the mother if I'm honest, but I know people will disagree with me on that.

My parents couldn't control me when I was 17, nor could most of my friends parents. I don't think it's that unusual TBH. We are all fine upstanding types now.