Friday, 12 August 2011

Why i feel evicting families of rioters would be a wrong route to take

As a number of Councils and Housing Associations in London, Manchester, Salford and Birmingham say that they intend to evict tenants involved in rioting (and Grant Shapps has jumped in to back them, as has David Cameron),

I firmly believe still that social housing should be a right not a privillage as David Davies argued last night on question time. We have a duty to house our residents and prevent homelessness. Evicting a whole family due to one person in that particular family chooseing to voice their anger and frustration by rioting is punishing the whole lot.

I do feel the right has been far too quick to jump into many reactionary views be that removing rioters benifits or putting teh army on the streets to rubber bullets. Peopl are angry rightly so no one appreciates having their house or local shops smashed up. But by jumping into tackling theis issue by just considering it a mindless criminal act on a mass scale kind of avoids the point to me. Allowing police to go out and shoot rioters is bringing us right back to why these riots originally started. A suspected police shooting on a innocent man in Tottenham. Failing to tackle the root cause of these riots which i put firmly at the door of deep inequality in our society is failing to learn from the mistakes of history.

I do feel that these riots will happen again if nothing is done to help communities and youth's who feel disenfranchised by society and have no hope or future.

Although not excusing the rioters or condoning this i do feel we'd be missing a big point if we dont look at the root causes and why people choose to riot in the first place.

But back to the point of evicting rioters families would have big legal consequences and could even trigger a bigger backlash as the poor are demonised even further and driven into ghetto's in affect.

The relevant grounds for an eviction would be Ground 2 of Schedule 2 of Housing Act 1985 (for secure, Council tenants) or Ground 14 Schedule 2 Housing Act 1988 (for assured, housing association tenants). These are pretty much identical, both read:

The tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house—

(a)has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality, or

(b)has been convicted of—

(i)using the dwelling-house or allowing it to be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or

(ii)an indictable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling-house.

Both are discretionary grounds, which mean that the Court must also be satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances to make a possession order and that the court has a further discretion to impose a postponed or suspended possession order with conditions.

There can be little doubt that rioting and/or looting would be likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance. There are likely to be large numbers of convictions for indictable offences as well. However, the nuisance or the offence must be in ‘the locality’ of the tenanted property. ‘Locality’ is not defined in either Act or elsewhere. I would anticipate that there may well be some difficult cases on what constitutes a locality to come, where the offence/nuisance is not within the immediate neighbourhood of the property. But certainly an offence committed in another borough is highly unlikely to count.

We should note in passing that Grant Shapps, a housing minister whose knee is never knowingly un-jerked, has today suggested that the ‘locality’ condition should be scrapped so that those found guilty of ‘being involved in rioting’ in another area could be evicted. The trouble with that is it would simply mean being convicted of an arrestable offence, even if wholly unrelated to the home or to housing, would be a ground for eviction. That may just be a step too far for all kinds of reasons, not least Article 8. Mr Shapps also points to his desire to introduce a mandatory ground for possession for those convicted of ASB – but this wouldn’t apply to offences committed outside the locality as they would not be ‘housing related’.

If the rioter was in the locality but is not the tenant, e.g. a member of the household, or even a visitor, the tenant would still potentially be caught by these grounds. This would be the case even if the tenant had no involvement at all, or didn’t even know that the other person did. So parents, partners etc. could well face eviction proceedings. While the court can consider the circumstances of non-offending occupiers and the relationship between the offence and the landlord-tenant relationship, the court must also consider the seriousness of the offence and its effect on others, and the likelihood of further offences.

Anyone wondering about a proportionality issue under Article 8 should note that these are discretionary grounds (at least to date!) and that the Court’s consideration of whether it is reasonable to make an order has been previous considered to be in effect an application of the principle of proportionality (E.g. Lord Brown in Kay v Lambeth).

Of course if the rioter (or tenant of rioters household) is on an introductory or demoted tenancy, things are quite different. There isn’t time to go through the whole process, but there, on an otherwise mandatory possession order, proportionality defences would come into play.

So i do think we should be very careful in moving into these areas of removing benifits and housing as these people some of them have very little and taking what they do have will only force them more into crimes.

1 comment:

  1. its a disgrace to evict whole families for the crime of one....i work for the youth offending service and if we start doing that we would have a massive problem on our hands....the fact a home owner wouldt have the same punishment would mean a massive class devide...we are suppose to be equall