Council evictions begin

pqrdef

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I would love to pay 50% tax if chavs threw their babies in the thames.

You make me so proud to be British. Well not me, but Cameron loves you.

olly300

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Not if they are intentionally homeless?

eg by contravening the terms of the lease by handling stolen goods?

We, as taxpayers, will be paying for the mother, daughter and son (whether he goes to prison or not) to live in private accommodation whether that be a hostel, B&B or rental accommodation.

This is because we can't leave the 8 year old homeless as in sleeping on the streets.

The 8 year old won't be put in care due to the problem with getting foster homes for children whose parents do have serious problems and the fact our care system is sh*t.

What the family has lost is the security of tenure that goes with being a council tenant and they are likely to be split up as a family.

olly300

ikati5 wrote: »

How can the mother have made herself and the child intentionally homeless because her son, who is an adult in his own right did something wrong?

It will never happen, she wouldn't be fined or imprisoned for his actions and she won't lose her tenancy. She is not to blame.

Depends on the terms of her tenancy agreement with the council.

If it states that she is responsible for the actions of visitors and other residents in her property then she can be evicted if their actions breach the contract.

macman

The relevant clause of the tenancy agreement will apply to all those living in the property, not just the tenancy holder.
And the boy in this case is not I believe an adult, he is a minor and as such under the care of his parents (or supposed to be ).

Rochdale_Pioneers

Its genius really. Practice collective punishment on the family of someone ACCUSED of wrongdoing. Suffer increased costs of accommodating them in the private sector. Suffer the future costs of the increased risk of further criminality.

Or, we could practice what Cameron told the Commons - innocent until proven guilty, people deserve a second chance. Oh yeah, except he meant only for his friends, for you peons its innocent until proven poor.

olly300

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Its genius really. Practice collective punishment on the family of someone ACCUSED of wrongdoing. Suffer increased costs of accommodating them in the private sector. Suffer the future costs of the increased risk of further criminality.

It already happens in Wandsworth - read the entire thread.

And Wandsworth is still a council heavily promoting RTB and loans for FTB.

olly300

macman wrote: »

The relevant clause of the tenancy agreement will apply to all those living in the property, not just the tenancy holder.
And the boy in this case is not I believe an adult, he is a minor and as such under the care of his parents (or supposed to be ).

The boy is 18 according to reports.

ILW

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Its genius really. Practice collective punishment on the family of someone ACCUSED of wrongdoing. Suffer increased costs of accommodating them in the private sector. Suffer the future costs of the increased risk of further criminality.

Or, we could practice what Cameron told the Commons - innocent until proven guilty, people deserve a second chance. Oh yeah, except he meant only for his friends, for you peons its innocent until proven poor.

So your idea is that it's probably just best and cheaper to let these idiots get away with it and just carry on destroying others peoples lives.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Suffer increased costs of accommodating them in the private sector.

And the reduced cost of accommodating one other family who gets their old house.

There is no net increased cost.

It's a zero sum game.

Rochdale_Pioneers

ILW wrote: »

So your idea is that it's probably just best and cheaper to let these idiots get away with it and just carry on destroying others peoples lives.

My dad has managed most of the worst council estates in Manchester, so I have a reasonable understanding of the issues. On these estates you generally have a handful of families who are responsible for most of the problems. Removing them and thus enhancing everyone else's quality of life is what the rules are there for.

I'm suggesting that in this case this is not the case and the eviction rule is being used for political witch hunt purposes. You do of course have evidence that this boy and his family have been destroying the lives of their neighbours?