43000 people forced to move because of benefit cap

mj12_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why are people worried about landlords having to go through CRB checks? Don't understand the argument against really, as don't know why people think it shouldn't happen.

Not that I think the argument for them are that compelling, but didn't think there would be such hostility towards it?

My argument would be its an invasion of privacy, there are specific cases where maybe people shouldn't be landlords - sex offenders etc. But in general why should a tenant (assuming its them who are doing the check) or an estate agent or whomever need to know if a landlord has a conviction for a myriad of other crimes, if their not in prison anymore then they have paid the price for their actions and that should be enough.

What would stop the tenant taking advantage of a history of petty theft for example and then 'claiming' some of their valuables had inexplicably vanished - afterall the landlord has a key... if we want people who have behaved badly in the past to behave well in the future they have to be given the chance to try without the baggage of the past. Allowing all and sundry access to details of what people may or may not have done in the past doesn't serve anyone well in the long term except in specific cases.

Its just another extension of the invasion of the state into the lives of ordinary people. I'm reminded of a quote by Thomas Jefferson 'any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security shall deserve neither and lose both".

Percy1983

Cleaver wrote: »

You've missed the point of my post. No, !!!!!phile teachers aren't okay in any way, shape or form, hence all teachers and indeed anyone working with children requiring, by law, to have an enhanced CRB check.

But you are saying a pedophile landlord is ok to access to a tenants children...

Yes the law says the landlord shouldn't enter the house the same as a teacher shouldn't touch the children, so a pedophile teacher can't be trusted so we do a CRB check yet a pedophile landlord can be trusted so we don't do a CRB check?

I am pretty sure if you did a survey all those with children and probably most without children wouldn't be happy about a pedophile having a key to there home.

mj12_2

Percy1983 wrote: »

But you are saying a pedophile landlord is ok to access to a tenants children...

Yes the law says the landlord shouldn't enter the house the same as a teacher shouldn't touch the children, so a pedophile teacher can't be trusted so we do a CRB check yet a pedophile landlord can be trusted so we don't do a CRB check?

I am pretty sure if you did a survey all those with children and probably most without children wouldn't be happy about a pedophile having a key to there home.

You can find out if someone is a !!!!!phile anyway, there is no need for a CRB check. And if someone doesnt want to live in a house owned by a !!!!!phile they can choose not to.... the vast majority of landlords arent !!!!!philes so it shouldnt be hard to find an alternative.

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

But you are saying a pedophile landlord is ok to access to a tenants children...

Yes the law says the landlord shouldn't enter the house the same as a teacher shouldn't touch the children, so a pedophile teacher can't be trusted so we do a CRB check yet a pedophile landlord can be trusted so we don't do a CRB check?

I am pretty sure if you did a survey all those with children and probably most without children wouldn't be happy about a pedophile having a key to there home.

Its the ones that are disguised as schools that'd concern me.

Cleaver

Percy1983 wrote: »

But you are saying a pedophile landlord is ok to access to a tenants children...

Oh for goodness sake, where have I said that it's 'okay' for a peadophile landlord to have access to tenants children? I said that landlords don't require a CRB - they are two different things. Shall we have a load of other nonsensical questions as well?

Is it okay for your electrician to also be a master forger?
Is it okay for the person you buy your sandwiches from to also be a burglar?
Is it okay for the cinema worker to also be a murderer?

No, none of these things are 'okay'. But that doesn't mean that every single employee requires a CRB check. Two different things.

Percy1983 wrote: »

Yes the law says the landlord shouldn't enter the house the same as a teacher shouldn't touch the children, so a pedophile teacher can't be trusted so we do a CRB check yet a pedophile landlord can be trusted so we don't do a CRB check?

Okay, without getting in to too much graphic detail here, I work in an office and don't require a CRB check. There's no need for me to have one as I don't work with vulnerable adults or children. A law exists so that I can't do harm to people, but let's say that I violently attack someone at work tomorrow. Is that okay? No, of course it isn't. Should all office workers therefore be CRB checked? No, of course not. Two different things, you see?

Should office workers attack people? No.
Should all office workers need a CRB check incase they attack people? No.

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am pretty sure if you did a survey all those with children and probably most without children wouldn't be happy about a pedophile having a key to there home.

Do ya really think so? Startling conclusion.

Cleaver

mj12 wrote: »

My argument would be its an invasion of privacy, there are specific cases where maybe people shouldn't be landlords - sex offenders etc. But in general why should a tenant (assuming its them who are doing the check) or an estate agent or whomever need to know if a landlord has a conviction for a myriad of other crimes, if their not in prison anymore then they have paid the price for their actions and that should be enough.

What would stop the tenant taking advantage of a history of petty theft for example and then 'claiming' some of their valuables had inexplicably vanished - afterall the landlord has a key... if we want people who have behaved badly in the past to behave well in the future they have to be given the chance to try without the baggage of the past. Allowing all and sundry access to details of what people may or may not have done in the past doesn't serve anyone well in the long term except in specific cases.

Just to be clear, lets say that a Landlord Register is set up by a government body and it's decided that that body will CRB check landlords and that any with certain convictions are not allowed to become landlords. Ones with other minor convictions can become landlords.

In the above situation the only person that would see the CRB are the Landlord Association and the Landlord themselves. The CRB could never be shared with tenants, estate agents or anyone else who wanted to see it as that isn't the way CRBs work. For example, if you're a parent then you know that the school you send your kid to has CRB checked all teachers and then either let them work or not. As a parent you'd never be able to have a look at someone's CRB even if you asked.

mj12_2

Cleaver wrote: »

Just to be clear, lets say that a Landlord Register is set up by a government body and it's decided that that body will CRB check landlords and that any with certain convictions are not allowed to become landlords. Ones with other minor convictions can become landlords.

In the above situation the only person that would see the CRB are the Landlord Association and the Landlord themselves. The CRB could never be shared with tenants, estate agents or anyone else who wanted to see it as that isn't the way CRBs work. For example, if you're a parent then you know that the school you send your kid to has CRB checked all teachers and then either let them work or not. As a parent you'd never be able to have a look at someone's CRB even if you asked.

A landlord register or something along those lines would certainly be less of a concern than individual estate agent/tenants performing the checks.

However i'm not at all convinced that would solve the alleged problem - there are plenty of landlords who operate outside of deposit protection schemes etc regardless of whether its legal and the people who are forced to use such landlords are usually those without the means to kick up a fuss owing to circumstances/finance/whatever - they just need a place to live. The same sort of people who have to use loan sharks etc. I think mostly what would be accomplished would be driving the small number of landlords who would be banned underground just as unscrupulous landlords now dodge desposit protection schemes.

Another thought.... who is going to pay for this register and the CRB checks, the landlords or the tenants or the taxpayer?

Cleaver

mj12 wrote: »

Another thought.... who is going to pay for this register and the CRB checks, the landlords or the tenants or the taxpayer?

Well, it's all hypothetical as it won't happen unless there's a change in the purpose of the CRB in law, as landlords aren't working with vulnerable adults or children. But normally the employer pays for the CRB check, so if it was done by some mythical Landlord Body I guess they'd pay.

I doubt EAs could do it. There are some pretty strict requirements to become a CRB approved organisation and you have to meet quite a stringent code, which is understandable as you're dealing with very sensitive data.

By the way, under the current rules if a CRB did come back that showed that a landlord had a conviction for rape, for example, it wouldn't necessarily mean that they couldn't be a landlord.

Percy1983

Cleaver you really are missing the point.

A teacher can be in a position where they can have access to children so has a CRB check.
A landlord can be in a position where they can have access to children so should have a CRB check.

As per usual you like to make examples with little relevance.

Is it okay for your electrician to also be a master forger? are children at risk?
Is it okay for the person you buy your sandwiches from to also be a burglar? are children at risk?
Is it okay for the cinema worker to also be a murderer? are children at risk?

No I don't believe all people who commit a crime should have there life written off, but I do believe we should protect children.

By all means in line with the voluntary work I do I have had a CRB check done and its not a problem, I work with vulnerable adults and had a check done there to and I know a man I work with had convictions but they weren't relevant so it made no difference (I only know this as he told me).

mj12_2

Percy1983 wrote: »

Cleaver you really are missing the point.

A teacher can be in a position where they can have access to children so has a CRB check.
A landlord can be in a position where they can have access to children so should have a CRB check.

As per usual you like to make examples with little relevance.

Is it okay for your electrician to also be a master forger? are children at risk?
Is it okay for the person you buy your sandwiches from to also be a burglar? are children at risk?
Is it okay for the cinema worker to also be a murderer? are children at risk?

No I don't believe all people who commit a crime should have there life written off, but I do believe we should protect children.

By all means in line with the voluntary work I do I have had a CRB check done and its not a problem, I work with vulnerable adults and had a check done there to and I know a man I work with had convictions but they weren't relevant so it made no difference (I only know this as he told me).

I have access to children every time I walk down the street.... and thankfully don't have to have a CRB check - pretty sure thats called a Police State.

Its about whether you have access to children in a way where you would have the possibility to abuse them - like a teacher (alone in a classroom). Do priests have to have CRB checks just as a matter of interest?

I couldnt abuse children walking down the street as passers by would likely and rightly have something to say about that - hopefully involving a substantial blunt instrument, similarly a landlord doesnt wonder around a house with only 5 year old children in it - of if they do then the social services need to be removing those children regardless of the landlord as they shouldnt have been left home alone. Thats of course assuming that the landlord has gone round without your permission in the first place which existing law says they can't do. If they arent following the existing law what use will a new one be.