news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16049238

A nice little hostel awaits you (though I dont see why we should pay for that either).

The Council moved very quickly on this.
Whats the betting that this family are well known to the local Council and have been constantly in trouble with them in the past?

Neighbour complains ? / Arrears ? / Anti-scoial behaviour ? ... all will come out eventually.

a shocking decision...punishing an entire family because of the actions of one member.

I shudder to think what would have happened in my family if we were all judged on the actions of one (especially the cousin and her shonky solicitor boyfriend who stole a private school's trust fund...mind you they made her mayor of a town ten years later).

I guarantee this eviction notice will not get past the judge. I can see appeal after appeal and top QCs getting in on the act.

What if he is found 'not guilty' ?..in fact there may even be a case to have the trial aborted..Wandsworth are jumping the gun and one wonders what their real motive is.

veritas wrote:
a shocking decision...punishing an entire family because of the actions of one member.

Parents are responsible for their kids ... and like I said, I bet they have "form" with the Councils just waiting for the opportunity to rid themselves of this trash.

veritas wrote:
I guarantee this eviction notice will not get past the judge.

Do get your facts right, veritas !

===

As a number of Councils and Housing Associations in London, Manchester, Salford and Birmingham say that they intend to evict tenants involved in rioting, we’ve been requested to take a quick look at the relevant grounds of Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 and consider the ramifications.

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, 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.

(b)has been convicted of—

not the same as being accused although Wandsworth and the tabloids seem to think differently.

serving of an eviction notice (basically pre-judging the accused) could result in the case being thrown out..providing he has a clever brief.

veritas wrote:
(b)has been convicted of—

not the same as being accused although Wandsworth and the tabloids seem to think differently.

serving of an eviction notice (basically pre-judging the accused) could result in the case being thrown out..providing he has a clever brief.

But he's already pleaded guilty !

He's only awaiting sentence at the higher court.

Punishment should only be meated out by the courts and by way of fines or imprisonment...social housing councils/private should not be allowed to inflict further punishments by making decisions that could seriously put many innocent and vulnerable young people in great jeopardy...homelessness equals sex trafficking, drug dealing, drug abuse, child abuse, robbery...and on.

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
(b)has been convicted of—

not the same as being accused although Wandsworth and the tabloids seem to think differently.

serving of an eviction notice (basically pre-judging the accused) could result in the case being thrown out..providing he has a clever brief.

But he's already pleaded guilty !

He's only awaiting sentence at the higher court.

yes and that brings up the very serious matter of courts being ordered to remain open and rushing the accused through the courts where they can be intimidated.

Many learned legal minds have said that the accused should be given time to be advised of their rights..many may plead guilty when they shouldn't (if you don;t know that happens then you are not paying attention).

Still...I'm sure his 8 year old sister will learn a valuable lesson when made homeless.

veritas wrote:
Still...I'm sure his 8 year old sister will learn a valuable lesson when made homeless.

Yes she will .... and she's also know exactly who to blame too !

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
Still...I'm sure his 8 year old sister will learn a valuable lesson when made homeless.

Yes she will .... and she's also know exactly who to blame too !

she may burn your street down in 10 years

Not a bad idea though..let's punish youngsters ahead of a potential crime..saves time.

veritas wrote:
she may burn your street down in 10 years

I dont thing so .... I think she will learn a good lesson (not to grow up like her thieving brother)

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
she may burn your street down in 10 years

I dont thing so .... I think she will learn a good lesson (not to grow up like her thieving brother)

Punishing kids for the sins of others?
Ur just nasty!