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

[London_Calling]

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.

The issue for the court will likely be "in the locality" (the phrase is used twice). One assumes Parliament intended for that to mean very locally, as in around the estate or street on which the council-leased property in issue actually is i.e. not down at Clapham Junction / Northcote Road which is far enough from most council housing in the area (except perhaps that estate who's name I forget but is immediately behind the Junction).

 

[Streathamite]

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

My sentiments precisely

 

[treelover]

That twat Govindia is being interviewed now on PM, brutal man, he is clearly a crypto-Tory..

sorry Thatcherite..

 

[past caring]

Disgusting.

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'.

Not sure there's any decided caselaw on the word in a housing law context. It was defined elsewhere in Housing Benefit law (so a not unrelated context) where a "locality" was used by rent officers to determine a local reference rent. It certainly wasn't "within a few metres of".

A "neighbourhood" was that part of a town or city where a person's home is which is also a distinct area of residential acommodation.

A "locality" was two is two or more neighbourhoods and each had to adjoin at least one of the others. To be a locality, there needed to be reasonable facilities for shopping, health, education, recreation etc (see R (Heffernan) v The Rent Service [2006] EWCH 2478 Admin if you're particularly interested in pursuing this).

These words are not current because the new LHA rules for Housing Benefit use different terms (e.g. "broad rental market area") but any interpretation of the word "locality" may well be informed by Heffernan given the similar context.

 

[cybertect]

(except perhaps that estate who's name I forget but is immediately behind the Junction).

The Winstanley Estate

[Grant Road/Winstanley Road]

 

[London_Calling]

Yep, Winstanley. Off Falcon Road, etc.

 

[krtek a houby]

Such wanton cruelty and disregard for the innocents. I weep, copiously.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Such wanton cruelty and disregard for the innocents. I weep, copiously.

Fuck off.

 

[krtek a houby]

I shall hold a candlelit vigil for him and all the other innocent victims surely to come

 

[past caring]

Fuck off, Pinkerton.

 

[treelover]

odious,

you that is...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fuck me, jer, this issue has really exposed your true colours, hasn't it?

 

[weepiper]

Such wanton cruelty and disregard for the innocents. I weep, copiously.

why are you still here?

 

[treelover]

ah, so its JB is it?

many of my views have changed since i began posting on urban, but how can anyone defend this?, or make fun of it, etc..

 

[Lock&Light]

I shall hold a candlelit vigil for him and all the other innocent victims surely to come

I've agreed with much you have said, but don't get dragged down into vengefulness.

 

[London_Calling]

One thing I find curious about this is, in my understanding, councils have a statutory obligation to house all homeless families.....so even if...

Plus, there's the human rights aspect.... Wandsworth are surely being grandstanding chancers here....

 

[roctrevezel]

So what about the home owners? What are they going to do to them to equal the loss of social housing tenants?

That has always been my problem when it comes to problem neighbours, if they own the property.

 

[krtek a houby]

I've agreed with much you have said, but don't get dragged down into vengefulness.

Fair enough. Anyone who's bothered to engage with me over the years knows when I'm serious or no.

There's plenty of people lost their homes and livelyhoods - where's the anger and compassion there?

To the easily offended feint of heart; of course I don't agree with this - it exacerbates the matter and will only generate more unrest. Happy now? Jeezus

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You can still fuck off.

 

[krtek a houby]

You can still fuck off.

Yeah, yeah. Bring on your curfews and curbing freedom of speech, Goebbels.

 

[veracity]

One thing I find curious about this is, in my understanding, councils have a statutory obligation to house all homeless families.....so even if...

Plus, there's the human rights aspect.... Wandsworth are surely being grandstanding chancers here....

The Wandsworth bloke interviewed on PM a few minutes ago said if the woman was to be made homeless through her eviction, the council's decision to house her would be based on 'an assessment' so he obviously doesn't seem to think there is a statutory obligation at all. I think (hope) this would be open to a legal challenge, it bloody should be anyway. I despair.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Edit: @ Mr Godwin, clearly.

Show me a single post by anyone who's posted on this thread so far that has in any way condoned the loss of homes or livelihoods caused by the riots.

Just the one will do.

Otherwise, fuck off.

 

[London_Calling]

The Wandsworth bloke interviewed on PM a few minutes ago said if the woman was to be made homeless through her eviction, the council's decision to house her would be based on 'an assessment' so he obviously doesn't seem to think there is a statutory obligation at all. I think (hope) this would be open to a legal challenge, it bloody should be anyway. I despair.

That's complete bullshit. They have a legal duty.

 

[wtfftw]

The Wandsworth bloke interviewed on PM a few minutes ago said if the woman was to be made homeless through her eviction, the council's decision to house her would be based on 'an assessment' so he obviously doesn't seem to think there is a statutory obligation at all. I think (hope) this would be open to a legal challenge, it bloody should be anyway. I despair.

Would they be able to shove it under "voluntarily homeless" or whatever the correct phrase is?

 

[past caring]

One thing I find curious about this is, in my understanding, councils have a statutory obligation to house all homeless families.....so even if...

Plus, there's the human rights aspect.... Wandsworth are surely being grandstanding chancers here....

Not quite. There's a statutory duty to provide housing assistance to all homeless people - that assistance might simply be advice - i.e. just handing over details of hostels and letting agencies. There is only a statutory duty to house those homeless who are also in "priority need" - pregnant women, those over pension age, those whose disabilities would prevent them obtaining and maintaining/retaining a tenancy and families with dependant children - i.e. children under the age of 16 or those between the age of 16 - 18 in full-time education.

What may be the case when you're granted a tenancy may no longer be so some years later. So this may present an obstacle to them, or it may not.

 

[past caring]

Would they be able to shove it under "voluntarily homeless" or whatever the correct phrase is?

Intentionally homeless. And no.

 

[veracity]

That's complete bullshit. They have a legal duty.

Whether they intend to honour that seems doubtful. He insinuated that she has intentionally made herself homeless, which I think would get them off the hook.

 

[wtfftw]

Intentionally homeless. And no.

That's the one. Ta. And good.

 

[London_Calling]

The parent of the son/daughter convicted of a criminal offence has intentionally made him/herself homeless?

Good luck in most courtrooms with that - you might get away with it at first instance if the judge had career ambitions, but otherwise... domeafavour.

 

[cybertect]

That's complete bullshit. They have a legal duty.

Shelter's notes on ASBOs, which may be relevant

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_a...ehaviour/rehousing_and_antisocial_behaviour#7

Applying for council or housing association housing if you have a history of antisocial behaviour

In most cases, you will not be eligible to go on the waiting list for council or housing association properties if you, or any member of your household, have been involved in serious unacceptable behaviour. Alternatively, the council may agree to put you on the housing register, but not give you any priority when deciding who to house.

This can only happen if the council decide that you have done something so serious that they would have been able to evict you, had you been a council tenant at the time. It might happen if an injunction or ASBO has been made against you and you have not stuck to the conditions.

If the council decides that you are not eligible because for this reason, they have to notify you in writing and explain for their decision. You should get advice at this stage to find out whether you can get the decision changed by requesting a review. This might be the case if:

• the antisocial behaviour happened a long time ago and you have maintained a tenancy without problems since then, or
• your behaviour was due to a physical or learning disability or mental health problems, and you could maintain a tenancy if appropriate care and support were provided.

Contact a local advice centre to find out whether you can challenge the council's decision. An adviser can look into your situation and may be able to help you show that what happened was not your fault, was outside of your control, or was not serious enough to mean that the council should decide you are not eligible.