'First' riot-related eviction notice served by Wandsworth Council

[AKA pseudonym]

Pouring petrol over a fire to put it out.....

A council tenant whose son has appeared in court charged in connection with the Battersea riots has today been served with an eviction notice.
The tenant is believed to be the first in the country to now be facing the prospect of losing their council-owned home as a result of Monday night’s rioting and looting in St John's Road and Lavender Hill.
The process will see Wandsworth Council apply through the courts for the eviction to be granted - with the ultimate decision resting with a judge.

link

 

[gavman]

no surprise it's wandsworth council first out of the gate

 

[treelover]

if i lived in London, I would challenge that decision, its appalling, stalinist style...

 

[_angel_]

It's extra punishment for council tenants. Unless everyone convicted gets their home repossessed or kicked out of private rentals, it cannot be fair.
Also the tenant was not the person done for rioting.

 

[agricola]

An outrage, but its probably the council trying to out-Tory the other councils and act hard to the media (or possibly an ongoing eviction that they have spun as being related to this disorder). On the facts reported this will never get past a judge - as has been said its the son of the tenant that was allegedly involved, he hasnt even been convicted yet, and it is almost certainly illegal under more than one law for someone to be evicted from council-owned housing for offences committed by someone else.

 

[Onket]

Fucking well out of order, Tory cunt.

 

[_angel_]

Actually if they have not been convicted I don't know how this could be legal at all.

 

[butchersapron]

Actually if they have not been convicted I don't know how this could be legal at all.

Here's the legal basis for it (my bold)

The relevant grounds for an eviction would be Ground 2 of Schedule 2 of Housing Act 1985 (for secure, Council tenants) or Ground 14 Schedule 2 Housing Act 1988 (for assured, housing association tenants). These are pretty much identical, both read:

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.

Both are discretionary grounds, which mean that the Court must also be satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances to make a possession order and that the court has a further discretion to impose a postponed or suspended possession order with conditions.

 

[London_Calling]

The leader/s at Wandsworth will love the publicity if nothing else, presumably they're looking for a safe Tory seat at the next General Election.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

that page is either blank or on guru meditation when i go there...
I'd say probably a spin thing or bad connection of unrelated stories by a lazy journalist maybe?

eta: but yes the bits of housing act quoted earlier means that actually vwery large swathe of the population coulod be evicted.
technically if you smoke a spliff or allow someone to smoke one =>> get out

 

[ska invita]

im really shocked - not surprised but shocked. I heard talk of this, but thought it was hot air. it didnt come up in the parliament recall debate did it? Under what law can they evict someone? (as angel says). Even if one member of a family in a council property commits a crime, is there a law that forces eviction for the family? or even if he was sole resident...

ETA: if wandsworth know that they wont get it through and its just a stunt then... words fail me

 

[gavman]

that page is either blank or on guru meditation when i go there...
I'd say probably a spin thing or bad connection of unrelated stories by a lazy journalist maybe?

the link is a bit temperamental, but it's to the wandsworth guardian

 

[Yossarian]

I'd say probably a spin thing or bad connection of unrelated stories by a lazy journalist maybe?

Council leader Ravi Govindia warned that anyone who lives in a council-owned property who is convicted of involvement in the disorder could also face eviction proceedings.
He had instructed the council's housing department to look at ways of evicting council tenants involved in the disorder.
He added: "People who live in council homes should be under no illusions about the fate that awaits them if they are found to have been involved in Monday night's destruction and thuggery.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/councils-set-to-evict-rioters-2335878.html

 

[_angel_]

Here's the legal basis for it (my bold)

It does also say "has been convicted of" as well... it would seem that hasn't been the case, yet. I do know people have been thrown out for their kids crimes before, but that was after a conviction.

 

[butchersapron]

It does also say "has been convicted of" as well... it would seem that hasn't been the case, yet. I do know people have been thrown out for their kids crimes before, but that was after a conviction.

Doesn't say have to be convicted of though...that's just one of the potential grounds.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Disgusting.

(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.

The bold bit will be the bone of contention, I would think. Maybe Marty or someone else will be able to say what 'in the locality of' is usually taken to mean. I would think that it normally means 'within a few metres of'.

 

[cybertect]

Here's the legal basis for it (my bold)

Wandsworth are using the terms of their tenancy agreement, rather than one of the Housing Acts referred to in that article.

It's then just breach of contract.

LB Wandsworth press release link

[Google cache as LB Wandsworth's web site seems to have melted]

The council is able to commence eviction proceedings against this tenant for breaching their tenancy agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, which applies to all the council's rented accommodation, all tenants, their household members and visitors are forbidden from a range of criminal and anti-social activities. Breaches of the agreement render them liable to eviction

Other issues aside, it still seems a bit premature if no conviction has yet been secured.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's extra punishment for council tenants. Unless everyone convicted gets their home repossessed or kicked out of private rentals, it cannot be fair.

You've won the lottery, you lot. Living in subsidised housing paid for by the rest of us. Laughing at us hard-working families from behind your plasma tvs (no doubt looted to order by your feckless children).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's totally mad that you can be held responsible for the actions of someone who is just visiting.

 

[Maidmarian]

AND all those foreign holidays !!!

@ lbj

 

[butchersapron]

Wandsworth are using the terms of their tenancy agreement, rather than one of the Housing Acts referred to in that article.

It's then just breach of contract.

LB Wandsworth press release link

[Google cache as LB Wandsworth's web site seems to have melted]

Other issues aside, it still seems a bit premature if no conviction has yet been secured.

As i read it, they can start eviction proceedings due to breach of tenancy contract, but the final decision must be made on the basis of the above legal stuff - except in certain cases of special tenancy agreements.

 

[Mr Smin]

It's totally mad that you can be held responsible for the actions of someone who is just visiting.

No it's not - the normal use of that provision is against people who use their home as a party venue to the detriment of their neighbours, run a brothel etc. I'd be staggered if it was used in a one-off incident of having a criminal or anti-social guest. My only issue is if your problem neighbour owns their home it might be harder to remedy the situation.

 

[cybertect]

Living in subsidised housing paid for by the rest of us.

You are aware that it's been illegal for councils to cross-subsidise the rents on their housing stock from the general rates since 1985?

 

[roctrevezel]

You've won the lottery, you lot. Living in subsidised housing paid for by the rest of us. Laughing at us hard-working families from behind your plasma tvs (no doubt looted to order by your feckless children).

Council Housing is NOT subsidised, it can't be by law.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You are aware that it's been illegal for councils to cross-subsidise the rents on their housing stock from the general rates since 1985?

Yes. I am. council housing is in no way subsidised by anybody, and is in fact a net contributor to the treasury. Sorry, thought it would be obvious that it was a parody.

 

[_angel_]

@ b4 lbjs post Oooops I think you've missed the sarcasm there.

 

[cybertect]

Sorry, thought it would be obvious that it was a parody.

I don't think the smiley quite made the point clear enough. Perhaps if you'd put it in quote marks or something...

Fair dos.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

It's totally mad that you can be held responsible for the actions of someone who is just visiting.

that's why I'd never let the police in my flat

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

It's extra punishment for council tenants. Unless everyone convicted gets their home repossessed or kicked out of private rentals, it cannot be fair.
Also the tenant was not the person done for rioting.

Exactly. There was a discussion about that on the news yesterday when some guy (I think he may have been from Nottingham Council) said council tenants and housing association tenants should lose their home. So what about the home owners? What are they going to do to them to equal the loss of social housing tenants?

 

[Maidmarian]

No it's not - the normal use of that provision is against people who use their home as a party venue to the detriment of their neighbours, run a brothel etc. I'd be staggered if it was used in a one-off incident of having a criminal or anti-social guest. My only issue is if your problem neighbour owns their home it might be harder to remedy the situation.

Is that really your only issue ?