Is Eviction and Dole Stopping Legal?

#1
From a strictly legal point of view ...... Would a rejection of Social security benefit and eviction of a tenant living in council property be legal on a person convicted of rioting?

My own view would be that David Cameron has made a knee jerk reaction by acting tough to the media, but all he has done is create a new set of problem's with this poorly thought out plan.

I understand that the first test cases are to be put before the courts next week.

I have absolutely no sympathy for any rioter of last weeks dreadful events, but i fear that the law will see Cameron's "tough talking plan" in a completely different light.

We all know the law is a ARRSE.

But will the prime minister be made out to be one as well over this matter?
 
M

Mark The Convict

Guest
#2
The taxpayers will pay for the lawyers and he'll draw his pension regardless - you think he gives a ****?
 
#3
From a strictly legal point of view ...... Would a rejection of Social security benefit and eviction of a tenant living in council property be legal on a person convicted of rioting?

My own view would be that David Cameron has made a knee jerk reaction by acting tough to the media, but all he has done is create a new set of problem's with this poorly thought out plan.

I understand that the first test cases are to be put before the courts next week.

I have absolutely no sympathy for any rioter of last weeks dreadful events, but i fear that the law will see Cameron's "tough talking plan" in a completely different light.

We all know the law is a ARRSE.

But will the prime minister be made out to be one as well over this matter?
The benefits stopping thereof would need a change in legislation however there is already provision for councils to evict anti-social and undesirable tenants according to their occupancy rules and what the tenants signed up to when they leased the property...buried in the small print is some undertakings and obligations on their part.

Many posters have advanced the theory that once evicted, tenants would still need to be housed by that council on an emergency basis. This may well be the case, however they would likely go into far less desirable council housing, in even worse areas and having their families messed about moving from sink estate to sink estate for a few years. Just remember that much social housing in is in good nick, but a lot isn't.
 
#4
As I understand it, council tenants are being hoofed all the time if they commit criminal offences.

This is no different from a family proven to be involved in drugs, anti-social behaviour etc. being evicted.
 
#5
As I understand it, council tenants are being hoofed all the time if they commit criminal offences.

This is no different from a family proven to be involved in drugs, anti-social behaviour etc. being evicted.
Whilst true, more often than not the criminal offence/antisocial behaviour is considered in the light of how it impacts upon the immediate milieu, i.e. what effect it has upon neighbouring tenants' enjoyment of their own tenancies.
 
#6
Well if a change in the law is required, I should think a majority in he House wouldn't be an issue right now. Just like the courts, fast track the legislation. When the Commons comes back from recess, two successive days should do it for first and second readings. Lords on the third day, Royal Assent on the Thursday. cnuts out on their ear on Friday. Jobza.
The dole issue aside.

The legislation for "out on their ear" is already in place. The difficulties are, the controversial aspect of hoofing Mum when it's little Johnny/Abdul who has committed the offence.

And:

I reckon if these proposed evictions do occur on a more substantial footing, then softly softly will be the key, in order to negate the potential uprising of those in the community that will surely object.

Any excuse for another spot of burning and looting.
 
#9
In North Yorks they are offered a place in a homeless unit, basic shared facilities, at a price that exceeds their normal rent. Council have met their obligation, end of.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#11
They only have a duty of care , If they are long standing tenants and if they fit other criteria .

its all well and good evicting them which is going to cost the tax payers thousands of pounds on legal aid but it will not sort the problem . The problem is just being moved on to another community .

For example if you have one teenager being a rioter ,all the other kids will be made a example of because of this , they will have to be rehoused , go to different schools and this will affect the other children badly because of this, which is not fair on these children .

May if the alleged rioter is found guilty , he/she should be sent to some kind of reform centre to enable that they can see the error of their ways and fit back in to society properly .

Their are plenty of former armed forces Who could run these centres . And former police officers etc to work with family's. So that they could fit in to the local community .

I sure our government. Can find enough money , to fund these projects out of the aid he is giving other countries .

As they say charity begins at home and it would also find jobs for individuals who are really experienced in their field of work
Chubb, got a job? No thought not, your opinion doesn't count. **** off.
 
#12
evicting is a ok idea but its going to cost the tax payer more money. why not put their kids in care, stop all benifits and make them do community service for a few months and then force them into a job. more jobs more taxes
 
#13
Typical knee jerk bollox that govt come up with to look macho, this will just cost (councils) more than letting them keep their houses tbh.
Does anyome actually think that a scrote and his Mam when chucked out onto the street will have an epiphany and will suddenly turn their lives around and become model citizens?
Or B become even more resentful and will be far more likely to chuck petrol bombs and stab coppers?


Go on have a guess which is more probable.
 
#15
Strange world,
Break a couple of windows and nick a telly and they take away your home

Steal millions from a pension fund, shut down the world economy, and get a bonus to buy a bigger house.

AND what the fuk is Cameron saying to english Plod by bringing a septic to teach them their job.

FFS this lot have got to go.....
 
#16
Camoron is talking out of his arrse to appear tough.

The tenants may be in breach of a term in their contract that allows a council to ask a court for an eviction order, but the court will have to agree that an eviction is justified: unlikely if the council can't demonstrate their continued tenancy is against the public interest.

You can't just stop benefits for any old reason either, and you can't change the law after the event, thanks to the HRA so many of you deride - article 7 "no punishment without law". The politicians, like the rest of you would be, had no issue with sheltering under the HRA umbrella when they, and their cronies, are in the (mixed metaphor) firing line.

Not that there's any need, the courts already have adequate powers to put a dint in their spending cash with fines, but that might involve due process, proportionality & justice instead of letting our illustrious leaders big themselves up again.

Thought for the day: if the kids riot for no reason, then it would be a better idea to give them a reason not to riot. That is different to a reason not to get caught rioting, by the way.
 
#17
Okay, this works for council/ social housing tenants and those drawing the rock n roll.
What about the millionaires[sp] daughter that went out on the riots, how does society punish her parents.
If there is a change of the law then surely its got to be equal to all.
Also at what age are children responsible for their own actions.
In my opinion the better option would be to jail the little darling and then ban him from the property, for life, including visits.
I am in no way a leftists but knee-jerk laws are bad laws.

CG
 
#18
Also at what age are children responsible for their own actions.
CG
10. But it seems they're not allowed to be punished properly until older than 16(?).
 
#19
His mother has a right to a family life (Article 8) so that would be too draconian. We don't actually know the circumstances though; it could be she's a good influence on him and the worst thing would be to kick him out. It could also be the whole household have been terrorising their neighbours 'n this the the final straw, but I'd be sceptical after the Council's despotic posturing.
 
#20
Okay, this works for council/ social housing tenants and those drawing the rock n roll.
What about the millionaires[sp] daughter that went out on the riots, how does society punish her parents.
If there is a change of the law then surely its got to be equal to all.

knee-jerk laws are bad laws.

CG
I think you have hit the nail on the head with that statement sir.

That is why this knee-jerk proposal will fail .... on the grounds of equality, You would be effectively making one law for the rich and one for the poor! ...... CASE QUASHED.

And the cavalier jerk who proposed this law will soon have egg on it's face.

British law has been engineered to protect the individual far more than it's ability to punish them!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
W The NAAFI Bar 7
H Army Pay, Claims & JPA 6
E Royal Signals 12

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top