Council Evicting Family of Rioter

[Cubist]

As others have said, Local Authority Housing has had the clause for years now, and I am aware of many cases where it has been used to ensure that a family toes the line. It is NOT however a one-off punishment, and should never be used as such. I suspect that this particular case has been gleefully reported (without the background) in order to glorify the actions of the council/lor involved.

Where this has been used successfully as a sanction against an individual or a family (and I stress, IN THE CASES I HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF) it has been a culmination of many incidents of anti-social behaviour by one or more members of that family, and anyone with a social conscience will be pleased to hear, the first steps will be to offer support to the individual and the family in order to help them realise the negative effect of their behaviour, and offers of support for them to mend their ways.

In order to invoke the legislation it must be shown that the situation has escalated to this point, and not just as the result of a one-off incident. So, I suspect we will eventually hear that this was an (alleged) dyed in the wool shitbag, not a one-off facebook driven opportunist.

The evictees I know have generally tended to move to other social landlords such as housing associations, and so have been able to mix with decent neighbours on the fringes of new developments under Mr Prescott's affordable housing clauses.

I challenge anyone to read any irony into my posting style on this one, I'm afraid I won't be drawn!!!!!!!

 

[Tyke]

I think Arch has answered the question very well here

I agree

 

[asterix]

As others have said, Local Authority Housing has had the clause for years now, and I am aware of many cases where it has been used to ensure that a family toes the line. It is NOT however a one-off punishment, and should never be used as such. I suspect that this particular case has been gleefully reported (without the background) in order to glorify the actions of the council/lor involved.

Where this has been used successfully as a sanction against an individual or a family (and I stress, IN THE CASES I HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF) it has been a culmination of many incidents of anti-social behaviour by one or more members of that family, and anyone with a social conscience will be pleased to hear, the first steps will be to offer support to the individual and the family in order to help them realise the negative effect of their behaviour, and offers of support for them to mend their ways.

In order to invoke the legislation it must be shown that the situation has escalated to this point, and not just as the result of a one-off incident. So, I suspect we will eventually hear that this was an (alleged) dyed in the wool shitbag, not a one-off facebook driven opportunist.

The evictees I know have generally tended to move to other social landlords such as housing associations, and so have been able to mix with decent neighbours on the fringes of new developments under Mr Prescott's affordable housing clauses.

I challenge anyone to read any irony into my posting style on this one, I'm afraid I won't be drawn!!!!!!!

Thank you for that info.

 

[Andy in Sig]

I remember some years ago when a mother (in Nottingham I think) was jailed for a few weeks after repeated warnings about her two daughters' truancy from school had no effect. They were taken into care while she was in the nick. Suddenly, they started going to school again after she got out.

I should imagine that this sort of punishment, while perhaps too late for those concerned at the moment, may well have a deterrent effect on similar families, especially if it happens early on in criminal careers rather than after loads of futile warnings and discussions.

 

[accountantpete]

The evictees I know have generally tended to move to other social landlords such as housing associations, and so have been able to mix with decent neighbours on the fringes of new developments under Mr Prescott's affordable housing clauses.

In practice this usually means that they are transferred away from the initial area into peaceful neighbourhoods in the hope that the new surroundings will have an beneficial effect on them.

My experience (albeit limited) is that this exports unruly behaviour into nice areas.

 

[steve52]

there has to more to it

 

[Cubist]

In practice this usually means that they are transferred away from the initial area into peaceful neighbourhoods in the hope that the new surroundings will have an beneficial effect on them.

My experience (albeit limited) is that this exports unruly behaviour into nice areas.

Dangerous territory here, but there are examples where it has worked, and a number where your reported experience has been borne out.

The debate around social engineering is a long and difficult one. I was involved in a now 12 year old award winning project where the entire local authority housing stock in a particular neighbourhood was sold to a developer. That developer then demolished the housing and replaced it with low-cost housing, which was then rented back to the community. As a longterm project there were clauses where a significant proportion of the profits had to be ploughed back into the community in the form of a dividend, and when I left the board of trustees the account held over £7 million. The Initiative also created a limited company which created community resources and facilities, such as a huge community building with a library, community meeting rooms, early years centre and adult education.

I digress. The majority of the residents were relocated and somewhere along the line a decision was made to move the majority to a particular locality across town. I had no part in this I hasten to add, but I would state that the original area was extremely high crime/low opportunity/aspiration. It was verging on a "no go " area, and I was a control room supervisor at the time of two incidents of serious disorder in the mid nineties. The racial mix was extremely volatile, with organised drug and crime gangs pretty well running the show.

Local councillors in the new (relocation) area were very vocal, stating openly (and to some criticism) that this attempt to cleanse one area was very much going to affect the new area. They were stumped by the party whip on more than one occasion as all three councillors from the Initiative area were from the same party and the same party as the vocal ones.

12 years later and the cleansing has worked. The new area now no longer houses the same number of criminals, there is a general feel good factor with beautiful new housing stock, and the community resources are the envy of many. Neighbouring areas aren't so lucky, and the Initiative area is a wee bit isolated, often targeted by criminals from its surroundings.

The area the residents were located into has fulfilled all those doom mongering prophesies that the poor beleaguered councillors voiced. To their everlasting credit they continue to try to make a difference, working tirelessly with the police and partners, but in this instance lessons were learnt that you cannot shift a troubled community lock stock and barrel into a new area and not expect the same issues to re-establish themselves.

The question now is therefore how much can you dilute the problem by shifting them out of one trouble spot to the next?

I have seen first hand how entire communities lack aspiration, hope, opportunity, and unfortunately this becomes self-perpetuating. Crime and anti-social behaviour become the norm and no amount of education, diversion, cajoling etc will have a positive effect on those levels of behaviour. As a last resort enforcement of what appear to be occasionally draconian methods is the only avenue left open. Even then, because it is handled so badly and often mis-reported, that enforcement is treated with mistrust and loathing.

It doesn't stop some of us from plugging away, hoping that one day we will make a real difference, but the last couple of weeks have been a long time coming.

 

[buggi]

Council's only evict as a last resort. if this guy's family are being evicted, it's not because of this one offence. they are trouble. i know this because i've had an antisocial behaviour yobbo live in the flat below mine for the past year. the council have to prove to the court that they have done everything within their power to settle the family in. so for them to now go to court, they wouldn't do it for one offence. they have to build up a whole case against them.

 

[Stephenite]

It's a very good thing to read posts from people with experience in this issue. The title of the thread and newspaper headlines, are typically chosen to shock or tug at the heartstrings.

Evictions aren't taken lightly. As others have said, inc. Buggi above. A great deal of effort is spent to avoid it.

Having grown up on council estates I think it's very important the council take an 'active management approach' regarding their tenants. It's not as if you can buy a house in another leafy suburb or village if you are having a row with the neighbour about the height of the hedge. In council estates the problem neighbours usually have a violent impact on you and your family, personally, before the long process of change can begin.

Ten years ago, I stayed at my brothers' on Coronation St. in Salford (sounds like a joke i know) for three months before moving to Norway. That was a no-go area for the emergency services. Beautiful, red-brick houses over three floors. But the neighbourhood was as dangerous as dangerous can be. Feral youths in gangs - and parents, if they didn't know the main leaders, locked up for fear in their own homes. Anyone over the age of forty, or wasn't fit-looking didn't go out in the evening. Once i heard someone trying to break in to next-door - in broad daylight, with a road-sign - i kid you not. I said to my brother 'We should do something.' He said 'No' very worried. 'Dont even move the curtains' - He kept them closed 24/7.

We now do alright for ourselves, thanks, my bro and I. But there are many good people who need to be protected. I've seen first-hand how estates of 100 households or so can be greatly improved by moving on the 'rotten apple'.

As to where does the 'rotten apple' go? Well, i'm an optimist.