GREENWICH Council has started eviction proceedings against a council tenant who was convicted following the recent .
The Great Harry in Woolwich was burnt out, shops were robbed and retail barns in Charlton were looted as the high profile disturbances that shocked the country spread to the borough of Greenwich in August.
Greenwich.co.uk has learned that the convicted council tenant has been given a custodial sentence and the council has initiated legal proceedings to reclaim the empty property.
The tenant is one of four people in council-owned accommodation so far convicted of offences following the disturbances. Thirty-three council tenants have been charged by police with offences relating to events on the night of the 8th August.
The council was one of the first local authorities to announce its intention to evict “rioters” following the night of disturbances. In a statement the following day, council leader Chris Roberts said:
“We shall seek the eviction of anyone living in council property if they are found to have been engaged in criminal acts.”
The Housing Act (1985) gives the council powers to evict tenants convicted of “an indictable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling house.”
The information was disclosed in a letter to Councillor Spencer Drury, Leader of Greenwich Conservatives, by Council Chief Executive, Mary Ney. Councillor Drury commented:
“I am very supportive of the decision to evict the person convicted of an offence as a result of the riots. There are no other family members involved here and I think it sends a clear message that the Council will not tolerate this sort of behaviour from tentants in receipt of subsidised housing.
“However, I think the Council needs to ensure that this sort of zero tolerance approach is extended to other tenants whose behaviour falls below certain standards, not just those where a high profile event, like the riots, leads to action.”
Two Greenwich Labour activists wrote an article for Greenwich.co.uk following the disorder saying they were “ashamed” the council was seeking to evict tenants.
So this person comes out of jail homeless. That will really help him to sort out his life.
The eviction highlighted is fully in accordance with existing Council policy. Tenants who are convicted by the Courts and receive a prison sentence automatically forfeit their tenancy and rightly so. No other family members involved. If there were a different set of scenarios would arise. Responsibility Is delegated to Officers? Members set the framework some years ago.
Good. No sympathy at all. Should be more widespread against selfish anti-social behaviour.
Without knowing the length of the sentence imposed it is difficult to make a specific comment. If the person is going to be in prison for more than a couple of months then they have effectively abandoned the property and any social landlord would, after taking any other material considerations into account, start proceedings to recover the property. In such a situation it would usually be irrelevant where the offence that led to the jail sentence was committed.
If the sentence is effectively less than two months then the situation is very different, not least in that the tenant would be back in residence at the property long before there is a court hearing. In that situation the council would have to persuade the judge to exercise his/her discretion that in all the circumstances it is reasonable to make a posession order. The primary consideration would be whether the offence was committed in the ‘locality’ of the property. Furthermore judges have a discretion to suspend such an order with conditions.
The basic legal background to the subject is set out on the housing law blog Nearly Legal at:
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/08/evicting-rioters-a-brief-note/
People really expect to improve a persons behaviour by making them homeless and cutting off their benefits? This just shows the level of inteligence of most people. Yes, the people may not care for him because he commited a crime but will they care when he is now forced to commit crime in order to live or do they expect him to crawl under a rock and disturb no one?
When this guy comes out of prison you would wish him to stop breaking the law yet you place the person in a position where crime will become a nessesity now. I fully understand the problem because I know that if I am in that position with no home, no money I will steal food to eat, to survive. I will not sit and starve to death and nor will anyone else do that.
This is where common sense and logic must prevail. When he gets out of prison and has served his time he should have like anyone else a place to live and the ability to buy food otherwise you are just inviting more crime. The real world is not as simple as a lot of people would like it to be.
When are we going to see some bankers get punished for the wreckage they have done to our economy as well? One set of laws for friends of the Government, one set of laws for the rest of us.
Don’t get the impression I want to let rioters and looters off anything, but let us (i) be fair and (ii) get things in perspective. The bankers cost us billions in 2007/8 and they are doing the same now, yet they enjoy the life of Riley smirking with millions in their banks and pension funds.
Good. So long, and take those pathetic looney left Liebour riot apologist councillors with you!
Tony – there’s not many bankers in Greenwich Council-owned homes, I think you’ll find.
I’ve no real opinion on this one way or the other, but I’m still disturbed that this has been Greenwich’s sole response to the riots to its residents – other boroughs have held public meetings, allowed people to get things off their chest or share ideas for the future, while Greenwich has just threatened its tenants with a stick and suppressed any other viewpoint.
Taking back council properties, does not solve anything you are making matters worse than it is, also taking away benifits dosn’t also solve anything whats so ever do you want the people to steal cloths, food and essentials to live and why should the families of the culpritsare to be shunned out of their homes just beacuse someone in the family commited a crime thats totally not fair.