Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
A new consultation on tenants convicted of ASB
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1959275.pdf
The question is will this work. I have my doubts, in practical terms, the police will want the LA to act swiftly. The LA will now be waiting for the courts to convict as they can then go for mandatory possession. “After you Cecil…after you Claude”....This might work when courts are sitting round the clock…but as soon as we revert to the normal pace of justice, this could actually slow things down…...
There is a very good quite critical analysis of this on the “Housing Law Update” heading on the “News in other areas of social welfare law” part of this site.
Wandsworth are now evicting (fanfare of publicity) a woman plus (18 yr old) son and (7 yr old dtr). The 18 year old is alleged to have been involved in the riots.
The tnt is a church going, charity worker. Neither she or her dtr were involved in riots. They all now face eviction.
Is this restorative justice? Or is this rough justice?
Sorry for the duff reference. The article is called Losing localism and can be found on the Nearly Legal Housing Law website.
[ Edited: 18 Aug 2011 at 02:04 pm by nevip ]Thoughts on Pauls post above?
“coupled with his wilful refusal to pay his rent”
Hmm.
This particular Wandsworth case (and there have been others) is a bit of a no brainer really given the amount of the rent arrears involved. That is not the worrying aspect. The troubling part is this part of the article. “When a tenant is given the keys to a council property in Wandsworth they must sign a binding agreement that neither they nor any of their household members will engage in criminal or anti-social behaviour anywhere in the borough, or commit any acts that cause fear, harassment or nuisance to other people living in the area. Failure to abide by this tenancy agreement renders them liable to eviction.”
Now, “ground 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 and ground 14 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 provide, for secure tenancies and assured (including assured shorthold) tenancies respectively, that the Court may grant possession where:
The tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house—
(a)has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality, or
(b)has been convicted of—
(i)using the dwelling-house or allowing it to be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or
(ii)an indictable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling-house.”
It is important to distinguish between the statutory use of the word “locality” and Wandsworth’s use of the word “borough” which implies a wider geographical area. Even the government’s proposals talk of creating a new mandatory ground for possession only for “serious, housing-related anti-social behaviour”. Existing statutory provision for the granting of possession orders for nuisance are designed to catch tenants who cause or allow anti social behaviour on or near their premises. In other words, behaviour which they have some element of control over. Even the government’s proposals do not seek to change that basic principle.
In Wandsworth, however, the council intends to go for a possession order even where there is no necessary nexus between the property and the crime. What might happen in Wandsworth would find tenants being evicted for behaviour of members of their families for which not only do they have no control over but of which they have no knowledge of at the time of its occurrence. That offends against notions of justice. And, Wandsworth’s “agreement” with its tenants may breach the unfair terms in contracts legislation.