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?

thanks edam but I don't think it is quite the same. If you don't pay your home is repossesed and the bank doesn't give you any cash to make the repayments.

I used to have Halifax shares which were worth about £1000. I hung onto them as you do and they are now worth very little with the Lloyds TSB.

hello you BDSM!

meditrina - ok, but as a starter for 10 they have laid down the guantlet with this first one. And personally, Iwouldn't take W. Council's word for anything upon which to foster a sense of trust.

NonnoMum - is that a yes I agree?

Thank you for doing this.

I have just read an article about this in the independant, the council themselves can't actually evict anyone, it will be a judge that decides the fate of each case and the people involved will be able to give their side - I think it is very unlikely that a court is going to evict a mum with an 8 year old child unless there is some history of problematic behavour.

Pan: maybe, maybe not. The point is that we do not yet know - not the wider context of this case, let alone hypothesising about cases which have not yet arisen.

Count me in.

yes nancy - it is up to a civil court judge to make the decision. Always has been in view of the very severe penalty homlessness has. It's a sentence in itself.

What I am asking for, on this thread, and as an MN viewpoint to be espoused, is that no family should be evicted in circumstances which go beyond the accepted policy of eviction for other 'anti-social behaviour', and being done on the basis that one family member is convicted of a riot-related offence.

The swingeing injustice is pretty plain.

I'm in.

The families would still be entitled to claim housing benefit (if indeed their income was low enough to qualify, which is not necessarily the case, because Council Housing is not means tested). They would just have to find their own landlord.

custard - it doesn't fly in the face of the general population as that has never been tested in this regard. Also I would say the g.p. have little education about homelessness and the tricky issues it engenders.

For me, at the heights of the riots Iwas willing to put aside my 'liberal' credentials and see the use of water cannon and even rubber bullets, which was a big thing for me.

If the evictions were to be on a case-bycase basis then possibly yes that's fine, but so far we have LAs saying all convictions will end in an application for eviction.

What is the point in this?

Person is convicted of criminal offences involving rioting. Council home is lost. Family is forced to relocate. Employment and education is disrupted for entire family. Family develops more problems due to this. Ends up on priority list for housing....

Revolving door system in confirmed. Costs to the tax payer esculate.

Utter bullshit.

Just a few points;

So far there has been ONE notice served and 2000 people arrested. That's hardly hundreds of people being evicted.

The ability of Councils/RSLs to apply to the County Court for a possession order for criminal offences is not new and is not over zealously used because it is regulated by the civil courts.

A notice will NOT automatically lead to the granting of an immediate possession order. It may not even end up at court - there may be some other agreement reached between the tenant and landlord at this point, for example an Acceptable Behaviour Contract.

Even if the Council/ RSL can prove the anti social behaviour/conviction then it has to be reasonable for the court to grant it.

When considering this the DJ will look at all the circumstances of the case, including previous behaviour and other family members. It is extremely unusual for an outright possession order to be granted on the basis of one incident unless it is very very serious. If there are children in the household then this reduces that likelihood further.

To restrict the ability of Councils/RSLs to apply for possession orders would significantly undermine their ability to deal with ASB/criminal activity within the social housing stock.

I think that pressing for this issue to be an MN Campaign misunderstands the provisions of the law and the safeguards that are built in to protect family members who have not had anything to do with the ASB/criminal activity.

MissBee - your knowledge of this is appreciated. BUT..

No-one, at least me, has said there are 100 of evictions, thoug hin the course of the next few months there could be.

We know that not all applications are granted - what we do know is that Wandsworth Council, who are in possesison of all of the facts in the case are still apllying for an eviction - they know the circumstances of the family.

Also, no-one is asking for an undermining of the LA/HAs right to seek eviction in the future - just that what is being porposed by Wandsworth and others is massively unjust in the the circumstances. It doesn't compromise future actions in other circumstances where eviction is warranted. An Acceptable Behaviour Contract can be negotiated outside of court proceedings.

There is no misunderstanding of the provisons allowed by law here at all.

I do appreciate the very valid and well-defined points you make. But in the current climate of 'blame-making' and fear, LAs are massively extending their practices.

from Wandsworth Coucil

I think this gives a pretty clear indication of that council to evict.

Of course there is the body called the Local Authority Association, who meet to discuss resources, best practices, staffing and other politically sensitive issues. If one, or a few authorities fall in line with this then it could be a very significant national issue.

It is important to 'nip this in the bud' and not allow the blame and out-of-proportionate consequences to land, literally, at the door of innocent people in LA/Registered Social Landlords tenancies.

and of course the larger political driver is to make people who are less able to 'defend' themselves a sort of scapegoat for a national problem. If we can 'punish' anyone associated with the offenders then that is ok, and it doesn't really matter about any sense of justice or fairness.

If they owned their properties this could not happen..too unfair for words! Have signeed e-petition. Of course you need to punish those that broke the law..but you cannot evict the perps that own their house or pay their own rent, it's social descrimination pure and simple!

Can I just add that as a Essex resident Lord Hanningfield has been to court and convicted of fraud..he stole thousands over the years..but HE still gets to have a roof over his head when he gets out!

Really?

Is this an actual policy?

Thank you Pan.

I will be on the case to this R G in the article shortly, as it is not fair that THIS twunt is evicted, while my dog poo flinging asbo neighbour isnt, but is allowed to fling not just dogpoo, on us, but racist comments too.

I agree with you Pan. I think teenagers in particular can do dreadful and regretable things and yet grow up to be perfectly worthy adults. If whole families can be evicted on the basis of the behaviour of one member (most likely a teenager) it's possible a mother and other younger children could be made homeless .. even a baby... Who on Earth could be more innocent than a baby? I think there needs to be SENSIBLE and fair consequences for those proved guilty, but leaving room for regret and positive change, e.g. lots of community service that will actually help repair the communities they have trashed... I don't understand how evictions will help at all. They can't surely be left on the streets, especially children. They will have to be found alternative housing??? Perhaps the logical step would be to swap the homes of all the evicted people. What is the purpose? If anybody says they don't care then they are presumably not caring about innocent people, possibly children, being forced to leave their homes and probably growing up to be angry, resentful and alienated. I don't think parents always CAN control their teenagers and to be honest I don't think I was easy to control myself, but I was always treated kindly and patiently, and I am now law abiding and well behaved at 44!

This is the first time I have had any dealing with a MN campaign. How do you support it?

Blind - well Ithink you have supported it by posting here!

And yes to others, this is the intention of LA's (so far a few of them), to propose eviction of the entire family purely on the conviction of anyone in the household in connection with any riot-related offence.

The sort of uegency is to do with the fact that Wandsworth intend on seeking possession on the first case, next week, at Crown Court where if convicted, a mother and 8 yo daughter will have a process enacted to have them all evicted, because the son commited an offence. A civil court judge has to agree to this BUT it's pretty important that a precedent isn't set.

I am shocked, really shocked that this could actually happen, not sure how I can help but I will support the campaign.

I haven't read all the posts are there any particular links I can share on FB etc?