Council evictions begin

Graham_Devon

10/10 for a vague response.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

10/10 for a vague response.

You mean you didn't understand it I want people to understand what the result will be of their actions if they break the law, transparency is what they call it, I think Is that clear enough?

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean you didn't understand it I want people to understand what the result will be of their actions if they break the law, transparency is what they call it, I think Is that clear enough?

Well every crime is different.

I.e. the intent to cause injury/damage and personal circumstances for instance is taken into account.

You couldn't have a list of crimes and associated punishments. Too many variations. Hence why we have judges.

However, I have to say, I find it weird that you should say this, as the tenancy agreement states the punishment. Which it seems you are against. So even when the punishment is clear for the crime, you are not happy about it.

olly300

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean you didn't understand it I want people to understand what the result will be of their actions if they break the law, transparency is what they call it, I think Is that clear enough?

In regards to eviction of council tenants Wandsworth Council website has a clear information on anti-social behaviour- http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200027/council_housing/241/council_housing-antisocial_behaviour_and_crime/9

I also know other councils in London (due to where I have lived and live) have similar clauses.

It clearly doesn't say that you have to be convicted to be evicted.

You, your lodgers, friends, relatives, visitors and any other person living in or visiting the property must not do any of the following:

• Breach the tenancy conditions
• Do anything which causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance to anyone living in the local area
• Do anything which interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living in the local area
• Cause damage to property belonging to other people or council property in the local area

Any breach of the tenancy conditions by anyone living in or visiting the property, will be treated as a breach by the tenant. If you are evicted it is likely that you will be considered to have made yourself "intentionally homeless" and consequently not entitled to re-housing by the council.

Behaviour for which legal action may be taken includes:

And in the list is - Damaging property

BTW I first saw information on this a couple of years ago in the council's self-promotion rag posted through residents' letterboxes.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well every crime is different.

I.e. the intent to cause injury/damage and personal circumstances for instance is taken into account.

You couldn't have a list of crimes and associated punishments. Too many variations. Hence why we have judges.

However, I have to say, I find it weird that you should say this, as the tenancy agreement states the punishment. Which it seems you are against. So even when the punishment is clear for the crime, you are not happy about it.

I am against people (and children) being punished for other peoples crimes (no problem with perp being kicked out, unless maybe it is a child) , I think transparency covers that as well. You can have a list of crimes and punishments, but you are correct you still need interpretation by a judge.
what we don't want is Mother of two with no previous convictions receives 5 months in jail for receiving a £10 pair of shorts compared to:
A fourth defendant, Linda Boyd, 31, who has 62 previous convictions, was given a 10 month jail term suspended for two years.
The maximum sentence of six months jail was deemed not long enough by the lower courts and their cases were fast-tracked to Manchester Crown Court for sentence today.

Eskimo12345

StevieJ wrote: »

what we don't want is Mother of two with no previous convictions receives 5 months in jail for receiving a £10 pair of shorts compared to:
A fourth defendant, Linda Boyd, 31, who has 62 previous convictions, was given a 10 month jail term suspended for two years.
The maximum sentence of six months jail was deemed not long enough by the lower courts and their cases were fast-tracked to Manchester Crown Court for sentence today.

I think you've guessed that I disagree with a lot of what you say, but I agree with your point on this kind of inconsistent sentencing. No doubt there were different circumstances for both defendants, I wouldn't be surprised if Linda was a recovering drug user and the judge thought that a stint in prison would set her recovery back significantly. Not that I agree with that, but that's the offender-as-a-victim society we live in.

Also if there are a number of people in a council house and one offends, they should all get kicked out. It will instill a sense of social responsibility in the tenants. Eventually they will learn.

StevieJ

olly300 wrote: »

In regards to eviction of council tenants Wandsworth Council website has a clear information on anti-social behaviour- http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200027/council_housing/241/council_housing-antisocial_behaviour_and_crime/9

I also know other councils in London (due to where I have lived and live) have similar clauses.

It clearly doesn't say that you have to be convicted to be evicted.

[/LIST]



And in the list is - Damaging property

BTW I first saw information on this a couple of years ago in the council's self-promotion rag posted through residents' letterboxes.

No problem with evicting someone for consistent anti social behavior, in fact I welcome it. I have got a problem with evicting a family who are not bad neighbours and one of the family commits a crime. It says damaging property in the local area, my guess would be in close proximity to the building they live, open to interpretation.

milliebear00001

Seems clear to me that the mother is absolutely right when she says she isn't responsible for her adult son's actions, and that she (and her very young daughter) should not be made to pay for his criminal actions by losing their home.

If the council feels the need to mete out some sort of tokenistic 'extra punishment' to those involved in the recent riots (presumably to placate their Daily Mail reading contingent) then I suggest they evict the criminal - i.e. him, and only him.

Eskimo12345

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Seems clear to me that the mother is absolutely right when she says she isn't responsible for her adult son's actions, and that she (and her very young daughter) should not be made to pay for his criminal actions by losing their home.
If the council feels the need to mete out some sort of tokenistic 'extra punishment' to those involved in the recent riots (presumably to placate their Daily Mail reading contingent) then I suggest they evict the criminal - i.e. him, and only him.

It. Was. In. The. Contract.

vivatifosi

pqrdef wrote: »

Of course you can. My mother was raised in a slum. But a lot of your neighbours are liable to be people who're living in a bad area because they can't get their act together. Nothing is solved by wishing those people didn't exist, calling them names, or confronting them with demands they'll never be able to meet.

Bad areas are far more heterogeneous than you suggest. You will get a whole mix of people: elderly who have lived their all their lives, and who will reflect on the "good old days" when it was different there; immigrants who are looking for cheap housing while they establish themselves in a new country; good, honest families who just happen to live there; and yes, some trouble-makers who may also happen to be gang members, and yes some young kids who can't get jobs.

Seriously pqrdef, have you ever lived on a run-down or very poor council estate or in a rough inner-city area? You would know that most people there are good and are fed up with the bad apples amongst them if you did.

If something tangible and good has come out of the riots, its that people who have not acknowledged their neighbours for years have started talking to each other on the doorstep.