Local Councils Breaking The Law

[Hymie]

This is a perennial story covered by Private Eye, with the only difference year on year being the increasing numbers of families placed in B&B for longer than 6 weeks.

Apparently the law states that councils should not place families in B&Bs unless there is no alternative, and only then for a maximum of six weeks.

Private Eye (issue 1460) reports that 1,100 families with children are in B&Bs beyond this limit (eight times more than in 2010).

It appears to me that one of the many reasons for this is that there is no penalty placed on local councils for failing to comply with the law – which makes the law pretty pointless IMHO.

[ToraToraTora]

dunno why you have this bee in your bonnet Hymie, what are they supposed to do? Create accommodation out of thin air? Would you rather they where fined and increased your council tax? All I see here is a whinge about some technicality with no suggested alternative. Why not take out a private prosecution if you are that bothered.

[ToraToraTora]

one thing you have forgotten hymie, Prosecutions are also at the discretion of the CPS and one of their criteria is whether it is in the public interest. Your very silly black and white comparisons are invalid anyway because thousands of crimes go unprotected every day.

[New Judge]

“Prosecutions are also at the discretion of the CPS and one of their criteria is whether it is in the public interest.”

Quite so. And if a private prosecution for the matter was attempted it would almost certainly be struck out by the Attorney-General.

“It appears to me that one of the many reasons for this is that there is no penalty placed on local councils for failing to comply with the law – which makes the law pretty pointless IMHO.”

Which is er…roughly (or even exactly) what I said.

You tried to compare such a transgressions by a Local Authority with you not having insurance cover for your car. Such a comparison is without merit.

[ToraToraTora]

If I was you hymie I would address the issues that make you uninsurable, sounds like that is your main bug bear and this is merely a rant related to that.

[tamborine]

Some homeless demand where they should live & wont accept homes elsewhere. Glenfell residents Demand Kensington homes where property is premium rates.

[ToraToraTora]

oh dear it seems hymie has nothing more to say!

[Hymie]

'oh dear it seems hymie has nothing more to say!'

This is never the case – I’m like a dog with a bone, I can go on and on and on.

No, what irks me is that many on here are critical of others breaking the law, whereas no one seems to care that local councils can and do break the law with impunity.
Worse still, they are willing to justify such criminality.

[ToraToraTora]

have you no comment on the points made above 17:40 and 17:52, you seem to not want any sort of explanation as to why councils are not prosecuted.

[Hymie]

The reason that councils are not prosecuted is that the statute does not provide for any fine/sanction for not complying with the law.

It is rather like the statue requiring you & me to have insurance to drive a car on public roads having no penalty for not doing so – imagine if that were the case, no one would have insurance (a bit like councils not bothering to comply with a law for which there is no sanction).

I’m only just starting to gnaw at this bone.

[ToraToraTora]

what do you think about the CPS's "public interest" criteria?

[Hymie]

Well there is a public interest angle – but councils would purely be being dragged through the courts in an attempt to humiliate them for failing to comply with the law.

Perhaps Private Eye could provide a public service by listing the worst offending councils.

But a far better solution would be a provision in the statute that affected families were entitled to compensation of say £100 per week (or part thereof) that they overstayed the 6 week time limit in B&B accommodation. The level of compensation could then be increased to the point where councils found it a cheaper option to comply with the law.