Homeowners could be evicted from their houses for yobbish behaviour under plans to punish “neighbours from hell”. Home Secretary John Reid announced today that he would be giving police and local authorities the power to impose “closure orders” on any property where there is serious anti-social behaviour.
The authorities currently have power to evict tenants and board up ‘crack houses’. Extending these powers to nuisance neighbours and the like is a step too far. For one thing, boarded up houses in a neighbourhood give the appearance of neglect, and what better way to attract crime to an area?
There is a world of difference between evicting a tenant and seizing a homeowner’s property. In the case of the former, a tenancy agreement would have set out the tenant’s obligations, the breach of which would entitle the landlord to evict. Where the local authority is the landlord, it is all in order for them to evict a yobbish tenant. However, I cannot see anything that can justify seizing a homeowner’s property under these circumstances. Is he still liable for the mortgage during his period of banishment, I wonder?
Under the plans, the authorities, in their magnanimity, will allow the exiled homeowner to return after three months if they undertake to behave themselves. What next? A duty on banks to check the status of potential buyers, and not to give mortgages to people who have been issued ASBOs?
One other question. Where does the Government intend to put all these troublemakers once they have been evicted? They will most likely end up in a hostel somewhere with other yobs and low-level criminals who have been similarly evicted from their dwellings, thereby concentrating the problem in one area. Pity the poor souls who live in such environs.
Anti-social behaviour is not ‘tackled’ by moving the perpetrators from one part of town to another. That would simply move the problem around without solving it. I would advise a rethink of these plans.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I wrote once about a system in America where “neighbourhood courts” are heard to deal with nusisance neighbourhood issues. The court sits in the local area, even in a mobile unit, and listens to complaints about noisy dogs, unkept gardens, as well as rowdyness and yobbish behaviour. It seems a good idea to me
November 15th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
I suspect this is mostly Labour leadership battle noise. Let’s see who can sound the most populist..
At any rate, their willingness to play fast and lose with individual rights is pretty unnerving.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
There is a programme in Scotland where they corral the miscreant neighbours. It has been going for over ten years and I have spoken to someone who has reported on it for the entire time - apparently it works. It sounds unpalatable to us but for the people who suffer in silence from the behaviour of these (what does one call them really). Also I suspect that if we were to dig under the surface we would find the numbers of mortgage-payers this would apply to would be low to non-existent…………..
November 15th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
MoragtheMindbender, are you implying that homeowners cannot be yobs? Perhaps not but they (ie homeowners) are over-represented in the murder and arson stakes, I feel. Are there particular ‘activities’ that a homeowner may not carry out? Murder, maybe, but not yobbishness
Seriously though, I see what you mean, but I would always hesitate before interfering with property rights. That is the so-called ‘thin end of the wedge’. Can you imagine how this law may be extended in future? Once we start compromising property rights in this way, you can expect an unscrupulous government to exploit that.
Deal with the yobs another way.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
We imagine that our possessions, including our money and our property, belong to us, but in reality everything that we think we own is only nominally ours as long as we keep our heads down, and play by the rules. And even then, the government can arbritarily decide to approprate
our belongings if they decide that it is in the interest of society.
I’ve certainly no sympathy for neighbours from hell, but there must be a better way.
How about arresting them and throwing them into jail? Silly me, we only do this to those who can’t afford to pay their property taxes.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:36 am
I agree with the policy of evicting home owners. Living in constant fear of reprisals from a neighbour and us being Council tenants and they being Home owners, i feel we get the least understood of the two. We are the victims of crime, (although the police say it isnt a crime) constantly under abuse from the son who is a nightmare from hell. Breaks fencing which has been newly erected and daubing things on our property. But what is done. Nothing. Give us the American Police, they will show what the police can do to idividuals as this.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 am
How can something be said not to be a criminal offence when you read in the paper saying a kid was arrested for daubing a twix on the side of a community centre. What does it mean to have two rulings. I understand that the stuff could be washed off by the indiviual but that didnt even come into the equation where our attack was witnessed by local residents. And how can children be fined for playing hop scotch on a public footpath and told it was criminal damage. Where is the sense of all this working towards a better police force.