Evicting rent defaulters is against their 'umin rights!

evoke

I fail to understand how someone could be "entitled" to £15K a year in housing benefits. Many hard-working people simply couldn't afford £15K a year in rental or mortgage payments.

Benefits should be there to get you out of a desperate situation - a fallback in times of extreme hardship. Benefits should not allow you to live in a property that most people simply could not afford to buy.

However, thanks to Blair's benefits society, a lot of people will take every penny that they feel they are 'entitled' to. Shamelessly.

poppysarah

evoke wrote: »

I fail to understand how someone could be "entitled" to £15K a year in housing benefits. Many hard-working people simply couldn't afford £15K a year in rental or mortgage payments.

I assume thats the LHA rate for 4 kids (5 bedroom band I assume) rather than the actual cost of the council house rent.

One of the housing officers in Ardwick used to refer to certain groups of people "people who can't manage their own affairs" and would go and fill in the housing benefit forms for them every time they needed doing.

It was the only way this sort of situation doesn't happen.

DVardysShadow

poppysarah wrote: »

That's like saying dog poo doesn't smell until you get near enough to smell it though.

I defy you to find a controversial item in the text.

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

There it is, now show me something you would disagree with.

Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
Article 2 – Right to life
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
Article 7 – No punishment without law
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 – Right to marry
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
Article 15 – Derogation in time of emergency
Article 16 – Restrictions on political activity of aliens
Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights
Article 18 – Limitation on use of restrictions on rights


There is more substance to the rights and a load more articles which are procedural. There are some illiberal articles [15 and 16]. But do tell us which of these rights you personally would give up on behalf of the whole of society.

Jowo_2

There's a bit more info here - seems the challenge was at least in part about how a council can deal with a tenant on an introductory tenancy. Seems it used to be considered easier to evict a tenant who has a probationary type of tenancy as the local council didn't have to prove it didn't breach their human rights but now the courts have decided to extend them this defence.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/councils-face-increased-human-rights-burden/6509783.article

Jowo_2

The other tenants that formed part of this legal challenge sound like total nightmares - the judgement makes it hard to evict anti social tenants, including those that have their sound systems confiscated and who harass their neighbours and who don't turn up to court to defend the possession hearings...


"Mr Hall became an introductory tenant of property at ...Leeds of which he was granted a sole tenancy by Leeds
City Council (“Leeds”) on 21 April 2008 and where he lives alone. Allegations
were made of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by Mr Hall and by visitors
to the property. The behaviour which was complained of was mainly of noise
nuisance from loud music and television and the banging and slamming of doors.
Mention was also made of shouting, screaming and arguing, banging on the
communal door and ringing a neighbour’s doorbell at night and in the early hours
of the morning. It was also said that Mr Hall had engaged in threatening and
intimidating behaviour and had been verbally abusive towards his neighbours. On
Page 11
1 July 2008 a noise abatement notice was served on him. He did not appeal against
this notice, and he appears to have disregarded it as complaints continued to be
received.
26. On 28 November 2008 Leeds served a notice of proceedings for possession
on him under section 128 of the 1996 Act. A review was sought, and the notice
was withdrawn following the review. Leeds continued nevertheless to receive
allegations of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour, so on 6 March 2009 it
served a further notice of proceedings for possession on Mr Hall. He again
requested a review, but this time the review hearing upheld the service of the
notice.
27. When the claim for possession came before His Honour Judge Spencer QC
in the county court on 6 August 2009 the appropriateness of the notice was not
challenged, nor was its validity. Mr Hall accepted in a statement that was produced
for the trial that there may have been occasions when he had played loud music
and that, when his now ex-girlfriend visited him and they drank alcohol together,
they would sometimes argue. He claimed that he had been drinking excessively
because he had been suffering from depression and said that he had been receiving
support from an organisation which supports vulnerable people who were having
difficulty in maintaining their tenancies. He asked the court to consider whether
matters occurring after the review could provide a basis for challenging Leeds’
decision to seek possession."

&

"Mr Frisby became an introductory tenant of property at ...Birmingham under a tenancy agreement with Birmingham City
Council (“Birmingham”) dated 23 April 2007. Birmingham received complaints of
excessive noise, including singing, music and banging emanating from the
property. It served a noise abatement notice on Mr Frisby on 19 November 2007
which permitted proceedings to be brought for a warrant to confiscate sound
producing equipment. On 4 February 2008 it served a notice under section 125A of
the 1996 Act which had the effect of extending the trial period of the tenancy by
six months to 22 October 2008. Mr Frisby was advised of his right to seek a
review of the decision to extend his introductory tenancy but he did not do so.
Having received further complaints of noise, Birmingham executed a warrant
under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and seized and removed sound
producing equipment from the property."

evoke

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I defy you to find a controversial item in the text.

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

There it is, now show me something you would disagree with.

Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
Article 2 – Right to life
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
Article 7 – No punishment without law
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 – Right to marry
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
Article 15 – Derogation in time of emergency
Article 16 – Restrictions on political activity of aliens
Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights
Article 18 – Limitation on use of restrictions on rights


There is more substance to the rights and a load more articles which are procedural. There are some illiberal articles [15 and 16]. But do tell us which of these rights you personally would give up on behalf of the whole of society.

Respectfully, with rights come responsibilities.

The problem with the tree-hugging, namby-pamby, politically-correct, looney liberal-left world that we live in now is that so-called human rights have gone too far and have become an excuse for a decadent, morally- and ethically-bankrupt society.

Human rights are used to promote laziness and lack of personal responsibility. It is everyone elses fault when, through your own stupidity or laziness, you fall over or get yourself kicked out of a job.

It is someone elses fault when you stab another person or mug a person.

It is someone elses fault when you fail to manage your finances properly and then expect handouts, courtesy of taxpayers.

I say all of those are null and void unless you have an ounce of common sense and do your bit for society.

Human rights have led to a society that is coccooned in cotton wool from cradle to grave and nobody has a sense of personal responsibility anymore.

We now have a society that is built upon entitlement to everything for free rather than a society with personal responsibility.

Someone else will always pay. That seems to be the thos for many these days.

BitterAndTwisted

If you're going to make blanket and completely inaccurate statements like that then I'll make one of my own: Daily Mail readers who accept everything they read in that rag at face-value are drooling morons who shouldn't be let out in public for their own safety.

evoke

At least most Daily Mail readers contribute to society than leech off it. Talk about biting the hand that feeds and all that...

DVardysShadow

evoke wrote: »

Respectfully, with rights come responsibilities.

The problem with the tree-hugging, namby-pamby, politically-correct, looney liberal-left world that we live in now is that so-called human rights have gone too far and have become an excuse for a decadent, morally- and ethically-bankrupt society.

Human rights are used to promote laziness and lack of personal responsibility. It is everyone elses fault when, through your own stupidity or laziness, you fall over or get yourself kicked out of a job.

It is someone elses fault when you stab another person or mug a person.

It is someone elses fault when you fail to manage your finances properly and then expect handouts, courtesy of taxpayers.

I say all of those are null and void unless you have an ounce of common sense and do your bit for society.

Human rights have led to a society that is coccooned in cotton wool from cradle to grave and nobody has a sense of personal responsibility anymore.

We now have a society that is built upon entitlement to everything for free rather than a society with personal responsibility.

Someone else will always pay. That seems to be the thos for many these days.

So take these away
Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
Article 2 – Right to life
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
Article 7 – No punishment without law
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 – Right to marry
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination

Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights
Article 18 – Limitation on use of restrictions on rights

and the world will be a better place? Which of them will you remove? Which of them will you make people earn?

While your concerns are valid, removing Human Rights is not the place to address them. The things you want are founded on Human Rights. And I totally reject your suggestion that these Human Rights are earned. Once you go down that route, we will have Daily Mail think about who has earned their Human Rights - you will have someone deciding that criminals don't deserve a fair trial or deciding that people who have not confessed to their alleged crimes have not earned their Human Rights, so it is OK to torture them.

Again, your concerns are valid, but your attack on Human Rights is completely wide of the mark. So, stop your sloppy thinking and work out what the problem is. It is not Human Rights.

tamarto

evoke wrote: »

At least most Daily Mail readers contribute to society than leech off it. Talk about biting the hand that feeds and all that...

Really says who the daily mail. pmsl