Apologies if I'm preaching to some of the converted with this one...
What strikes me as perverse is that pending the outcome of Weaver v L&Q and possibly after it (although hopefully not) is that some tenants can get evicted because of something that's not their fault (let's say through a HB delay) whilst others won't as their notice will only be on ground 10 and 11 and a Judge will at least have the chance to consider the arguements on each side. From my experience if there is a Housing benefit claim or appeal in and that, if successful, this would clear much of the arrears, the tenant is likely to get another chance. Ground 8 has prevented this and is not something secure tenants can face.
This always reminds me of North British Housing Association v Matthews [2004] EWCA Civ 1736, [2005] 1 WLR 3133 and how sensible I think Mr Simon Hughes suggestion in clause 34 was. 2 weeks to process a Housing benefit claim, cough splutter.
I'm a firm advocate of trying to get people to take responsibility for their actions and sometimes I do get depressed assisting people who just can't give any answer to why they haven't put in a claim for HB or paid their rent. A recent case where a kindly Housing Association had used 10 and 11 for arrears in the thousands involved a tenant that I believe just didn't take the Court Hearing and paying her rent seriously as she had always managed to get a SPO or PPO in the past due to suddenly paying a lump sum that reduced her arrears and promised to pay her rent
again!
On the flip side what is the cost to society if such a tenant (with children) gets evicted.
Would it be fair to evict a few such tenants on ground 8 to warn others that the same thing might happen to them?
It seems to be easy in housing to come up with questions but answers are evading me!
A penny for your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My thoughts are:-
I think that the problem lies in the status of housing associations. I think that the law should be tightened up so that they are not allowed to recover possession on mandatory grounds at all. I think that Ground 8 should be restricted to private individuals who own only one or maybe two properties. Those are the people that I think Ground 8 was introduced to assist. The property owners who had been put off renting out their properties by the way in which the law up to the time of the Housing Act 1988 meant that it was extremely difficult and expensive to try and evict a tenant. I think that it is fair enough that small private landlords should be able to get a tenant out quick if they are not paying the rent. These landlords may themselves face re-possession action from their mortgage lenders if they do not receive rent.
I remember going to a HLPA conference a couple of years ago where someone from the Housing Corporation gave a talk. He encouraged the audience to report any housing associations who were using Ground 8 because the Housing Corporation were keen to stamp it out. If this was for real I don’t know why the Housing Corporation have not been lobbying Parliament for a change in the law to prevent housing associations from using Ground 8 in the first place. It makes me wonder if the Housing Corporation isn’t some sort of retirement home for worthy types.
I think that until the law is changed there will be two tier justice for tenants of social landlords in this country. Those people who local authorities house themselves will have much greater protection than those whom they nominate to housing associations where they are exposed to possible claims for possession under Ground 8. This seems completely unfair to me.
As for your suggestion about the flip side and lazy tenants. I think that it would not be fair on those tenants who are evicted to evict them in order to warn others. I think that the question of what is to be done about people who are unwilling or unable to interface with the welfare state is a huge question which I would like to try and answer but have not got my head around it yet.
Cheers for the comments William.
I agree that ground 8 should be banned for Registered social landlords.
The 'bigger picture' about the welfare state I find extremely interesting. I would like to see the figures for how many Housing Association Tenants and Secure Tenants are in rent arrears at any one time. Perhaps because I deal with those in arrears there is a danger of becoming too cynical.
Post a Comment