Grandstand
The family of Michael Barton, one of Anthony Walker's murderers, are being evicted from the home they rent from the Knowsley Housing Trust.
The Obligatory 'Bob', in this case Bob Taylor, the Trust's chief executive, has said the eviction is being pursued because,
"The crime, which so appalled the nation, was committed while Barton was a resident at one of our properties and we are therefore applying to gain repossession of the home...
"Any act of crime or anti-social behaviour by a tenant or a member of their household constitutes a breach of their tenancy and will result in us seeking to repossess their home.
"We believe this policy sends out a very clear message to the community that no form of criminal activity or antisocial behaviour will be tolerated".
Michael Barton's crime did appal the nation. He is a very hateful, bigoted young man who now has a long time to reflect on his murder of another young man, a young man of great promise and character, whose only crime was having skin darker than his own.
Barton may have broken the terms of the Knowsley Housing Trust's tenancy; but was he the tenant?
Why should the rest of his family have to lose their home because of what he did?
By the standard of this eviction, what crimes do not raise its spectre? Drunk driving? Driving without insurance?
Not paying contested parking tickets?
Not having a TV licence?
If this action is successful, a precedent would be set for every resident in every property rented in England and Wales becoming responsible for every other tenant's conduct outside the property as well as in.
They would become their flatmates' keepers.
Mind you this sort of action, which is the nearest a housing officer will ever come to grandstanding, could just be reserved exclusively for those families that have produced both a race-murderer and a Premiership footballer who might be able to re-house them.
Those exceptional circumstances might make the Knowsley Housing Trust think it's got a win-win proposition on its hands. If that's the case, it's a pity they think that they can drive a coach and horses through the rule of law.
| 3 blogger comments
| links to this post
3 Blogger Comments:
Any act of crime or anti-social behaviour by a tenant or a member of their household constitutes a breach of their tenancy
If what you quote is accurate, the agreement is breached. The family signed up to something, a member of the household broke it. Contract broken.
Whether the contract itself is just is another issue, but they signed it.
Mat,
You assume that the proposed eviction is not subject to challenge.
And the family didn't sign up for anything - a tenant did; a tenant asuumed responsibility for paying rent; and the eviction now being sought is because of behaviour by a member of the tenant's household in which the tenant played no part.
There would appear to be no particular circumstances for the execution of this clause in this case as described. And there must be some scope for arguing whether such a broad enforcement clause is reasonable.
I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that a court or tribunal would probably be more interested in the reasonable intention of the clause, rather than its specific wording. This sort of provision is included in tenancy agreements to deal with grossly unacceptable behaviour on the premises: running a crack den or brothel in the flat, chronic and intolerably loud music in the middle of the night, persistant vandalism, violence, intimidation, handling stolen goods -- that sort of stuff. I doubt whether the isolated involvement of a resident in a single fatal altercation elsewhere can be claimed to be within the intended purview, especially since the miscreant is now out of the picture.
I suspect that the Bartons could mount a successful appeal against this bit of smug pious victimization.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home