The recent riots and looting have stimulated considerable debate in social housing sectors, with social networks led by Twitter and Linkedin providing fodder for thought from many quarters. The key issue addressed appears to centre on whether or not social landlords have a role in responding to the troubles and, if so, what it should be.
Many views have been expressed and it may be an over-simplification of the debate - but there seems to be two camps. In one corner are those who believe social landlords have a duty to respond and, in many cases, argue that the right to a tenancy could be forfeited by those guilty of taking part in the disturbances. In the opposite corner are those who do not believe that the role of social landlords is to supplement the judgments of the courts and that to do so could damage society further.
Whilst I can appreciate the emotive reasons for arguments that support a positive response from the social housing sector, I find myself loyal to the fundamental role of social landlords, which is to provide good quality and affordable housing for those in need. To my mind, the sector does not have a role in administering punishments. I suspect I would still hold that view even if I was persuaded that such punishments would deter further offending.
I have read a number of comments about tenancy agreements and the justification they offer for punitive action by social landlords. The line of thought offered is that the tenant signs an agreement not to cause disruption to society and if s/he (or another member of the household) does, then it is quite right for the tenancy to be in jeopardy.
Do many social landlords have a tenancy agreement that broad? Surely such tenancy clauses are included so that tenants are required to respect the property they occupy, their neighbours and their immediate neighbourhood. Exercising a punishment on those who commit an offence elsewhere is a completely different matter.
For any landlord to be involved in supplementing the judgment of the courts would be a slippery slope to traverse. Even accepting the safeguard of the courts in sanctioning any punitive actions, I would prefer not to live in a world where a secondary punishment is applicable to only one sector of society - social tenants.
My further concern is that the exercise of such power will not be uniform and the relationship between social landlord and tenant will become adversely dependent on post codes.
Mike Skilton is the former editor of Housing Monthly Diary and a Director of UK Housing. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Housing minister Grant Shapps has announced plans to make it easier and quicker for landlords to evict their most antisocial tenants.
The mandatory power of possession for antisocial behaviour would allow both private and social landlords to apply for possession where criminality or antisocial behaviour has already been proven by another court.
Three trigger offences which would allow a landlord to exercise the mandatory power have been broadly defined as follows:
Shapps states that the aim of legislation is not to increase the number of evictions but to speed them up:
"Our proposals for a new mandatory power of possession offer a way of shortening the possession process in a way that is fair to victims and witnesses and is also fair to those at risk of losing their home."I hope that they will help to more quickly bring to an end the day to day misery that too often is inflicted for too long on those who seek simply to quietly enjoy their homes."
The consultation paper can be accessed here and the consultation period ends on 27 October.
Grant Shapps has confirmed that, in light of the recent riots, he wants to increase the scope of his recently-announced plans to fast-track evictions.
Current legislation means that tenants can be evicted if they have been involved in criminal activity in the 'locality' of their home. Shapps would like to give councils the right to evict for offences committed outside the local area. He writes:
"As things currently stand, whilst thuggish behaviour against neighbours or in the immediate vicinity of their home provides a ground for evicting a tenant, looting or other criminal activity by tenants further from their homes can't usually be taken into account.
This cannot be right. People who commit anti-social behaviour should feel the consequences regardless of whether their actions are taken within the immediate vicinity of their home or further a field. That's why I want to add a question to my recently-started consultation, on whether criminality and anti-social behaviour that tenants or members of their family commit outside the immediate neighbourhood should provide a ground for seeking eviction."
