The cost of inflation

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Where do you think all these antisocial tenants live? Are they on the streets? If not. Where are they? Who is housing them?

Here, they get told to behave and threatened with eviction. If they don't behave they can be moved out (in practice it is not a swift process at the place I'm thinking of). There is no duty to give people a home who are intentionally homeless. However anti-social attitudes do not exist in isolation. There's generally something else going on as well, such as they don't know how to look after their kids, so they could also be sent to (or at least asked to attend) parenting classes. Mental illness can also be a big problem. Worst case scenario: their kids are put into care. There is also an issue with burden of proof with neighbours, there's a lot of 'he said, she said', which is why people use nuisance diaries.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The root of your confusion.

These ARE council tenants, in HA properties. Councils don't make homes anymore. Housing Associations take them on. They are placed into HA homes, as I suggested earlier. You go on the council waiting list, and into these properties (if you are lucky).

Jesus graham,

They are HA tennents, they sign the HA agreement. They are not a coucil tennant as they are not in a council house.

Would you have someone in your house under someone elses terms?

Stop this. It is really foolish. A HA tennent is not a council tennent. The HA have their own terms, that are not the councils and do not have the same liabilities for finding them accomodation if they make them homeless.

Really2

vivatifosi wrote: »

Here, they get told to behave and threatened with eviction. If they don't behave they can be moved out (in practice it is not a swift process at the place I'm thinking of). There is no duty to give people a home who are intentionally homeless. However anti-social attitudes do not exist in isolation. There's generally something else going on as well, such as they don't know how to look after their kids, so they could also be sent to (or at least asked to attend) parenting classes. Mental illness can also be a big problem. Worst case scenario: their kids are put into care. There is also an issue with burden of proof with neighbours, there's a lot of 'he said, she said', which is why people use nuisance diaries.

Thanks, can we draw a line under it GD.
It happens, but I hate this where you have to try and make out I am wrong non stop.
It ain't that important. All this based on the fact saying it was bad stewardship?

Antisocial behaviour can lose you your house if you are a HA tennent.

If your HA puts up with it it is bad stewardship, that is not a pop at you.

JonnyBravo

They get placed into B&B's and the like.
Like viva says, it's a long drawn out process but like Really says it can and does happen.

Graham_Devon

vivatifosi wrote: »

Here, they get told to behave and threatened with eviction. If they don't behave they can be moved out (in practice it is not a swift process at the place I'm thinking of). There is no duty to give people a home who are intentionally homeless.

And this is the legal issue, and the hoops I was referring to earlier.

The intentionally homeless part does not go down too well at court. Even if the housing association get the tenant to court, the court will often send them back.

My dad worked in this business. He dealt with these people.

It might be different in really2's neck of the woods, but there are problems everywhere, and if it were as simple as simply chucking people out, we'd have people all over the country on the streets.

We've got housing association flats with problems down here. Needles in corridors. If it was as simple as throwing them out, surely it would be done. But it's not. So many hoops to jump through as ultimately, these people need a roof somewhere.

I see it on my own doorstep. We all know they are simply being moved around. We complained en masse, and now they are simply a mile up the road. They have simply been moved on.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I Where do you think all these antisocial tenants live?

Dale Farm by the sound of the radio reports (just a quick quip joke, nothing meant from it in seriousness)

daveyjp

wotsthat wrote: »

If someone in work is doing the calculations to work this out I'd guess that they were intelligent enough to work out that if they packed up work they'd forfeit any future wage increases, potential bonuses, promotions etc.

I'm sure that there are plenty of examples of it not being financially worthwhile working but I also think it's used a handy catchphrase by many more who simply can't be bothered to work.

Not everyone in work is in their 20 somethings and has 40 years work ahead of them. Intelligent older generation workers in part time jobs on minimum wage may well be doing the calcuations now.