Evicting council tenants if they were involved in the riot?

[Wrongn3mber]

I'm watching the pm and parliament in the House of Commons on Skynews and on the scrolling banner at the bottom it said " Council tenants warned they could be evicted from their homes if found to be involved in rioting"
Is this just big talk and scare tactics?
Is this possible or even fair? Who will be evicted if an 18 year old was looting without their parents knowledge would it be fair to kick out the family onto the streets? The kid by him/herself? Where are these homeless people going to go?

[factor-fiction]

I understand there is already a provision in the rules, at least in some areas, to remove the whole family if one member of the family (including a teenager) is convicted of certain offences.

But I am not sure in practice it will happen since the family will need to be rehoused. Maybe we should let them stay in the house/flat but break all the windows and doors so looters can get in

[Old_Geezer]

A number of problems. First off the law is supposed to define the punishment. One is not supposed to punish council tenants more than private dwelling owners. That's inequitable. And anyway, if they are homeless don't the council suddenly have responsibility to house them ? It's a whole new can of worms. I don't think the suggestion has been thought through properly.

[redcrx]

councils already evict families if members are involved in crimes, why should it not be extended to those who have been found guilty of robbery and violence?
those evicted can still look at privately renting.

[Wrongn3mber]

"Maybe we should let them stay in the house/flat but break all the windows and doors so looters can get in" Lol.
This is what I mean og, the council have a moral obligation to rehouse them and if they're then rehoused in a better house/conditions then how would this be a punishment?
Redcrx which crimes do they evict whole families for? Something as small as Graffitti? Shoplifting?

[plautus]

Absolutely ridiculous. We have laws to deal with malefactors. If the parents are innocent of any offence, why should they suffer because of the delinquency of their offspring? Is this a reversal of the Jewish Law whereby the sins of the children shall be visited upon their parents? I think not.

[Old_Geezer]

Council housing seems to have weird rules, although I have little personal experience of it. Some seem to think this housing isn't for those who can not afford to privately rent or buy. My local MP is pushing for higher earning tenants to no longer be eligible but release the house for someone more in need. One would have thought that would already be the case. And now I hear councils evict for committing a crime ? For some crimes I may understand, if it is a crime against the property, or making a nuisance of themselves in their present location, but is the implication that they can do so generally, for crimes unrelated to their tenancy ? I despaired of authorities many years ago, so I shouldn't be too surprised I suppose.

[factor-fiction]

I don't think this is a 'dopey dave' idea (assuming you mean DC) - I think the rule has been around a while and I heard a Labour council leader on the news yesterday saying his council would be looking to evict families of rioters.

[redcrx]

ive seen people evicted for drug dealing and also for robbery. Im saying it is possible that some of these criminals will be evicted. Doubful that it will be a family whose 18 year old has pinched a phone from phones4u.
at least those whose homes were destroyed may have a chance of decent shelter whilst trying to rebuild what theyve lost.

[chelle7272]

OG you're right they are weird rules. Once you are in it matters not if your income rises or your children all leave home, the propoerty is still yours. You could be earning a high wage and have a 4 bed property all to yourself even though there are people desperate for housing.
Our local authority have been known to evivt where a memebr of the household has been charged with a crime, but I don't know if it is any crime, or those which may affect other residents, antisocial behaviour, burglary etc.
There is not necessarily an obligation to rehouse if this is the reason for eviction.

[redcrx]

and if councils can evict residents for playing music too loud, then why shouldnt they be able to kick someone out who has set fire to the neighbours cars etc?

[I.Don No]

if you own your own house and are convicted of looting during the riots you can't be evicted.

I thought we were all in this together.

[elgreco]

if you own your house then the rest of society are not subsidising your rent

[snorkerz]

Bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Both private and social landlords can already evict tenants for disruption &/or criminal activity. The only problem is that it has to be in the 'locality' of the rented property. To you or I, that would probably be the same street or block, but I think some councils are going to try (and probably fail) to convince the courts that 'local' means the same city!

[daisya]

Something has to be done to make parents responsible for the upbringing of their children, some don't give a jot about what happens after they have dragged them up. Make sure parents realise the responsibility lies in their hands and if brought up properly, children know what is right and wrong and should know their parents will mete out punishment should they break the rules.

[DTCwordfan]

that is shooting themselves, the councils that is, in the proverbial foot. Surely it is far cheaper to keep a family in a council house/flat (probably the wrong words in this post-New Labour world, pc wise), than to have them bouncing around the joys of the sleezy bandb world, building up their frustrations even more, so that the rest of the family go out on the streets to shoplift, scam, *** and all the rest.

I also agree that it is unequitable as well given that those "richer kids/ijiuts" who have chosen to conduct themselves so disgracefully, do not suffer as to their accommodation, allowing for their parental decision about letting them squat in their houses.

And for Dr F's consideration, this comes from the rabid right winger he thinks I am......

The judiciary, as well, have to take care in the meting out of their harsh sentences. Yes Jamie handled £300 of looted furniture, lingerie and a can of baked beans from M&S and gets six months, but is it fair when Chavvie Mick beats up an old dear for her £800 of savings and gets the same sentence.......or PSW (publicschoolwanker - a girl) in Oxford gets the same offence for manslaughter of her 18yr old gf when pizzed as the proverbial R1G last Friday evening.