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?

Can we make a few distinctions here?

Everyone was shocked and appalled at what we witnessed, be it on tv or in RL. The level of aggression and wifulness (And sometimes apparent pleasure being taken) in offending was shameful. I did watch what I call 'my home city' of Manchester being used as a violent playground where there were no rules.

The levels of 'moral turpitude' witnessed ( depravity, which sentencers take into consideration) were wildly variable. Nonetheless, LAs appear to wish to usurp any consideration of this and make a blanket decision of one-size fits all, something that the criminal justice system has never recognised.

and the bearing of responsibility thing? Of course it's something we all live by. But we can only do that within the constraints of that which we have a control over. Many/the majority even of these cases didn't involve people under 18 yo if that's some kind of threshold for parents. The perpetrators are largely 20-30 yo.

If there is scope to evict the offenders only then that would appear somewhere near 'fair'.

nancy75: the mother of the 17 year old appears to be a separate family making a comment (very separate - as according to google maps the Pembury estate is in Hackney, a place in which Wandsworth could not possible be initiating evictions).

Custard as well, if you lost your private home presumably the council would provide you with somewhere to live or housing benefit to rent privately? So you would still have that safety net.

These people have fallen off the bottom.

As I said previously, I don't think eviction of the family is a satisfactory solution, but neither am I happy about a derisory few days in jail as punishment.

I think the guilty offenders should be convicted, serve an appropriate sentence, and then be obliged to do a set amount of community service in order to stay in their taxpayer funded/subsidised homes. That is how they can make a small gesture to their communities, and earn their second chance.

Yes, we have a 'duty of care' but with rights come responsibilities.

is that a yes in support then, Maryz?

Sardine queen - this family would still get housing benefit (if they do at the moment) they can also rent privately

that may be possible nancy - but I still come back to the fairness issue and the fracturing of lives in terms of schooling, possible work consequences, friendships etc of people who had absolutely nothing to do wit hthe offending and were themselves shocked by it.

That doesn't seem to be what the leader of wandsworth council is saying, nancy. The statement says that the council obligation towards the family will cease. Housing benefit is paid by the council. The rules say they have to provide temporary accomodation for 28 days after the eviction and that's that from what I can fathom.

Their responsibility to house them means the council giving them a house. Being evicted has no bearing on housing benefit payments

Have you got a source for that nancy, or someone saying that is what will happen? Because that is not the gist that I have got from what I have read. All I have read is that the "council obligation will end" and the council pays housing benefit. You have to apply to the council to get it.

It's different from centralised benefits like JSA etc.

we are focussing on Wandsworth but quite a few other LAs are rattling the same sabre. Shamefully, manchester city council are making similar noises, tho' most/all of their housing stock is in HAs hands.

My personal view is that people who have had no involvement in this should not be evicted from their homes. And that's that really. Certainly not little children, elderly people, disabled people and all the rest of it.

My understanding is that these people will not be able to obtain support for alternative housing which is why I am struggling to see why the majority of people are supporting it.

When a council talks about responsibility to house it means actually giving someone a house/flat whatever to live in. The part of the council that gives out council houses is not the part that decides if you get housing benefit. When they say the council obligation will end it means they won't get given another council house. It is the same if you make yourself homeless on purpose - they don't have a responsibility to house you, however if you qualify for Hb (based on earnings) you will get it for private rented accommadtion

from my very crusty memory of course nancy is right. council tend to administer HB and then claim it back from central govt. 'obligation' means the provision of a home.

Just looked at my own assured tenancy agreement for my HA house

Also mentions domestic violence and drugs either in the property or away from it. It mentions a few things about 'either in the home or outside'

Never read it before!

Couont me in Pan - I think it's appalling, punishing a whole family for the crimes of a single family member. Are we a Fascist state FGS?

Domestic violence?

That one is a bit confusing.

Are people sure about this HB thing? As that doesn't seem to be the gist of the news items that I have read.

I still think it is fundamentally wrong to punish family members for the actions of one of them. People affected by this will include all sorts of vulnerable people who will have their lives entirely disrupted, children will have to leave their schools, all of that sort of thing. It's just wrong, to my mind.

Are people sure about this HB thing? As that doesn't seem to be the gist of the news items that I have read.

I think you have misunderstood the meaning

I really do hope that I have got the wrong end of the stick about that.