There was a social experiment a few years ago around here, where they put problem families on a newly built estate. The theory was they would take more pride in their estate because they had a nice home and a stake in the community. The reality was the estate was turned into a shit hole in the space of about 3 months.
Same thing happened in Nottingham during the 60s slum clearances. One particular street had a very bad reputation and some people wanted to move them en masse to a new street elsewhere but keep them together. The council said no, saying that if they were split up and moved separately to better areas they would learn to live properly., but the opposite happened, like a rotten apples they spread and brought down the whole area, turning the new estates into new slums.
Until our council started taking the reject tenants from neighbouring areas - never been a problem person where I live; i n fact the neighbours have always been brilliant (as they were in other districts' council housing where we have lived). I've owned my own home and had a nightmare neighbour. Lived in council houses for years and had only lovely neighbours.
But councils can't really do the in depth checks on people coming in from another area. The nightmare neighbours they moved in next to us, it turns out, had been thrown out of York social housing and were having to live in a private rental til our council generously offered them a house. Their record of antisocial behaviour hadn't shown up as the council only ask for a reference from the latest landlord - that one had no trouble with them, as they'd gone to a detached house, as a result of not being able to live peacefully with neighbours in a semi-detached. Had the council asked for say, references going back 5 years, or a set number of references - they would have been found out.
A council has no statutory duty to re-house people who have been kicked out from other social housing, for not paying rent or antisocial behaviour, we were told - so in other words, there is no need for them ever to re-house people with a record of abusive or threatening behaviour. The trouble is they don't dig deep enough.
It was only after our new neighbours started causing problems for everyone on our little street that the council officers even went to check out their criminal records/record with SS (which apparently councils can do).
So they tend to offer a tenancy with minimal checks and searches, then deal with the fallout after. Our's are now looking to evict these idiots - a lengthy and costly process which would have been utterly avoidable, had the council looked more closely into these tenants in the first place. They are on their last chance - they have to improve their behaviours or they will get the bums' rush. But even then it will take months as antisocial bolshy people tend to 'know their rights' and will push the procedure through every appeal.
It only takes one bad family to change a council estate. Immediate neighbours move out and no-one wants to move in, so the council puts problem families in. This causes other decent families to seek exchanges and so the problem rolls on. Eventually the place becomes a ghetto. I have seen the problem at close-hand with a relative who was living in sheltered accommodation. The 'sheltered accommodation' status was lifted, the warden moved out and 'care' farmed out to private organisations. Pretty soon my aunty was driven mad by loud music, parties which involved sofas and chairs being dragged out into the street, abuse, fly-tipping and drug taking. She eventually went into care but would have remained in her own home had the council taken action when the complaints for started coming in.
Same thing happened in Nottingham during the 60s slum clearances. One particular street had a very bad reputation and some people wanted to move them en masse to a new street elsewhere but keep them together. The council said no, saying that if they were split up and moved separately to better areas they would learn to live properly., but the opposite happened, like a rotten apples they spread and brought down the whole area, turning the new estates into new slums.
I work in Nottingham and they still have a policy of putting people evicted from social housing into particular areas (Forest Fields/Gregory Boulevard being one) as it's not difficult to get a place there, due to the high levels of anti social behaviour and violent crime.
Here in South Lanarkshire Council, the social work department have priority with the council housing stock dumping their disruptive service users in concentrated areas. You will find many small communities run down because of this.
As I understand it these days we try to pepper-pot the affordable housing around rather than concentrate the poorer residents in estates.
That is generally the preferred option of housing departments and planners, but in practice it rarely happens.
Because a big proportion of social housing is provided by developers under Section 106 agreements, councils don't have a lot of say in where it goes. Developers don't want a scattering of council tenants in amongst their "executive" housing as they believe it will make it less attractive to buyers, so they usually insist it's all stuck together in the least attractive, least convenient, corner of the site.
I've seen many developments where the social housing is of a completely different design from, and using materials inferior to, those used elsewhere on the estate and it would stick out like a sore thumb if it wasn't tucked away in some gloomy corner.
Where I live, they take their budgies out and sit with the cage by the front road. I've always found this incredibly strange, and it's not an isolated incident of one family.
They take the sofa out too, one time I saw they had moved their tv onto the lawn.
LOL.
I was in a part of Dover last year and there was a full washing line in several of the front gardens.
You bid on properties here, so you choose where you want to live... well choose from several council estates.
The neighbours around here are largely fine, petty little things like dog mess, roaming cats, parking annoyances but nothing major.
Until the lad upstairs moved in, he is a walking stereotype and stirred everyone up, made the stairs stink of weed, keep us up until 4-5am, rows with parnter, verbal abusive... the usual.... why I don't know.
But just one dodgy neighbour can ruin a previously peaceful neighbourhood, though that doesn't jsut apply to social housing.
My parents like in a relatively decent area, homes are all owned, professional working and middle class families.... then one evil SOB moved in and the area just went down hill...... horrible people bring out the worst in everyone. People who were freinds for decades fell out because of this guy - even the police said he was a nasty piece of work >:(
You bid on properties here, so you choose where you want to live... well choose from several council estates.
The neighbours around here are largely fine, petty little things like dog mess, roaming cats, parking annoyances but nothing major.
Until the lad upstairs moved in, he is a walking stereotype and stirred everyone up, made the stairs stink of weed, keep us up until 4-5am, rows with parnter, verbal abusive... the usual.... why I don't know.
But just one dodgy neighbour can ruin a previously peaceful neighbourhood, though that doesn't jsut apply to social housing.
My parents like in a relatively decent area, homes are all owned, professional working and middle class families.... then one evil SOB moved in and the area just went down hill...... horrible people bring out the worst in everyone. People who were freinds for decades fell out because of this guy - even the police said he was a nasty piece of work >:(
Exactly, neighbours from hell don't always have to be in council/social housing properties. I hear loads of people in disputes that have turned nasty over fences, hedging and parking, on private estates. A friend of mine at the moment is having loads of hassle with her neighbour over a hedge. Said neighbour shouting abusive language now to my friend whenever she leaves her house, and they both own their homes on a private estate. Simarlarly the neighbours ruining our peaceful street are in a private tented home.
There was a social experiment a few years ago around here, where they put problem families on a newly built estate. The theory was they would take more pride in their estate because they had a nice home and a stake in the community. The reality was the estate was turned into a shit hole in the space of about 3 months.
Where I a live it is a brand new private estate (less than a year old) but part of the deal with the developers includes the provision of a certain amount of social housing (I think that now when planning applications are granted this has become law).
There are two area of social housing, one for people with specific needs and aimed at disabled residents who are all lovely and very appreciative of their purpose built bungalows and another area for those who would have traditionally been housed in council properties. From day one the second group have caused problems. Within 48 hrs of the houses being released by the builders they were smashing their own and neighbours' windows. Social services had to be called because it appeared that a child was being beaten and some of the youths living there roam around vandalising cars.
There is massive resentment from the second group of social housing residents towards the private owners, even though they are living in identical houses at a fraction of the cost. Yes, we have better cars but that's because we are all in work and paying a price for them rather than sitting around at home (some of them out at the front with their armchairs on the pavement!) all day.
I am heartily sick of hearing their drunken brawls at 2a.m., their kids f'ing and jeffin' at each other and their out of control dogs cr*pping on the open areas that should be for kids to play. The housing association doesn't seem to give a mouldy carrot for their behaviour and if I had realised what it would be like then I would have thought twice about buying the property...
Too much time on their hands. I'm sure if our nightmare neighbours earned their dole, and had to actually work even just some of the time instead of spend all day being violent and abusive, they'd be too knackered, or have real issues on their mind, so less time to cause the chaos they brought to this previously quiet village. They really do conform to the Daily Mail stereotype - flashy cars (three in ten months) ; lengthy holidays; loud, increasingly doped up BBQs in the garden with their pals (starting 11am) - and if anyone buys anything or puts anything different in their garden, they have rushed out and bought one of the same within 24 hours. It is odd how they are playing this expensive game of keeping up with the Joneses when all the Joneses are middle aged so had years to acquire stuff, and employed.
One reason I never wanted to own my own home ever again was when we bought a house next door to an alcoholic who sang loudly and let out streams of abuse, day and night. Turned out the authorities knew all about him and could do nothing as his family owned the house, and he was a registered alcoholic so essentially, bombproof. At least if they're tenants, private or HA or council, you stand a remote chance of eventually being able to secure an eviction order.
But yes, I feel a lot of the problem stems from envy that everyone round them is working, and boredom - they have long days to fill. Conflict keeps them occupied. And also a childlike state of expecting to be given everything (I even heard my neighbour whining loudly that the council hadn't bought him carpets! Blimey you have just been given a house that is too big for you with two hundred foot gardens, in a pretty village - for free - isn't that enough?)
Many moons ago I was in a council flat and I got the distinct impression the council matches a tenant to an area. Despite me selecting on my application form I would be available for any area, I was matched to an area where most people were either working or retired workers who tended to look after their homes. I knew of others who were not from a particularly great background (criminal records etc) who were matched to other areas.
I know this isn't particularly scientific but it's my experience. Admittedly it's some years ago too as I'd imagine all applications would now be made online so I don't know if that has made a difference to the discretion a housing officer can use and I don't even know if there are interviews as such anymore.
No. They often put bad tenants in with good ones in the hope that they will respect and conform to where they live.
No need to guess the outcome usually. But what is the answer?
To have the social housing scattered amongst private housing so there's no concentration, to have the social housing tenants sign acceptable conduct agreements as part of their tenancy and to have a firm disciplinary and eviction/sin bin policy - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/apr/12/socialexclusion.uknews.
That said private sector housing tenants and home owners can be equally guilty of poor conduct.
That is generally the preferred option of housing departments and planners, but in practice it rarely happens.
Because a big proportion of social housing is provided by developers under Section 106 agreements, councils don't have a lot of say in where it goes. Developers don't want a scattering of council tenants in amongst their "executive" housing as they believe it will make it less attractive to buyers, so they usually insist it's all stuck together in the least attractive, least convenient, corner of the site.
I've seen many developments where the social housing is of a completely different design from, and using materials inferior to, those used elsewhere on the estate and it would stick out like a sore thumb if it wasn't tucked away in some gloomy corner.
Absolutely, it's still a system driven by money. Understandably so though, you wouldn't want your affordable housing in the prime location.
The use of cheaper materials is understandable too, given that often affordable housing is much larger than private.
When it comes to numbers, asking for about 40% affordable is going to end up with them put in an apartment block just to save on cost... But at least they are being built!
When I was younger and my parents have told me, it was the case that the council houses were always far nicer than private, indoor toilets and electricity that others didn't have.
Too much time on their hands. I'm sure if our nightmare neighbours earned their dole, and had to actually work even just some of the time instead of spend all day being violent and abusive, they'd be too knackered, or have real issues on their mind, so less time to cause the chaos they brought to this previously quiet village. They really do conform to the Daily Mail stereotype - flashy cars (three in ten months) ; lengthy holidays; loud, increasingly doped up BBQs in the garden with their pals (starting 11am) - and if anyone buys anything or puts anything different in their garden, they have rushed out and bought one of the same within 24 hours. It is odd how they are playing this expensive game of keeping up with the Joneses when all the Joneses are middle aged so had years to acquire stuff, and employed.
One reason I never wanted to own my own home ever again was when we bought a house next door to an alcoholic who sang loudly and let out streams of abuse, day and night. Turned out the authorities knew all about him and could do nothing as his family owned the house, and he was a registered alcoholic so essentially, bombproof. At least if they're tenants, private or HA or council, you stand a remote chance of eventually being able to secure an eviction order.
But yes, I feel a lot of the problem stems from envy that everyone round them is working, and boredom - they have long days to fill. Conflict keeps them occupied. And also a childlike state of expecting to be given everything (I even heard my neighbour whining loudly that the council hadn't bought him carpets! Blimey you have just been given a house that is too big for you with two hundred foot gardens, in a pretty village - for free - isn't that enough?)
l am sorry to hear that account - no one should have to put up with behaviour like that. Scotland, to its credit, has much tougher legislation on this matter so that bad neighbour home owners can even be barred from their own home as a last resort:
I do believe there are certain dumping areas for certain types of families. There's a couple of such areas near me, and a common theme is alcoholism, drugs, violence etc.
I agree. They definitely have estates they earmark for the worst shits in the borough.
l am sorry to hear that account - no one should have to put up with behaviour like that. Scotland, to its credit, has much tougher legislation on this matter so that bad neighbour home owners can even be barred from their own home as a last resort:
Scotland has a lot of laws England should emulate. That is one of them.
My other (nice) neighbours bought their council houses, and they all think that our council has put these people in, knowing how bad they were, thinking they can sink them without trace if it is a remote place, rather than a big housing estate, where there are only a handful of other residents affected. They also all seem to believe that our council don't care or rather, actively want these tenants as they're on full housing ben (minus the bedroom tax) so are sure payers, or at least, guaranteed to pay most of the rent.
I think maybe it is less black and white - the council should have asked for more references or refs to cover a longer period, as it would have exposed these people as antisocial tenants with previous and they would never have had a right to be housed, according to the rules of this council, anyway. And I know the council didn't even go and check on their record with SS and police until after complaints were received. If they'd run those checks beforehand, they could have made a fairer decision on whether to waste a good 3 bed house on these people, or not. If they think that would cause more cost and admin - the cost of an hour or two's legwork running checks, is far less than the cost of having to deal with the legal process of eviction.
Housing policy has always been about social control one way or another - shove them all on a sink estate, or else dot them around separately. But I think in my council's case, the council were just naive and maybe tenants should lobby for stricter controls on who gets offered new tenancies - more rigorous checks, etc. However, for all my other (nice) neighbours, to a man/woman, they all think it was cynical and the council knew these people were arsehats, but didn't care.
To have the social housing scattered amongst private housing so there's no concentration, to have the social housing tenants sign acceptable conduct agreements as part of their tenancy and to have a firm disciplinary and eviction/sin bin policy - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/apr/12/socialexclusion.uknews.
That said private sector housing tenants and home owners can be equally guilty of poor conduct.
My dad, who had dealings with the local town-planners, told me that the council did divide people up to some degree on various estates. There was one for upwardly-mobile, self-employed types, another for those who worked in the large industrial estate and an estate for those seen as a social -problem. Of the latter, it was said that if you built a fence around the place, the locals would probably nick it!
I do believe there are certain dumping areas for certain types of families. There's a couple of such areas near me, and a common theme is alcoholism, drugs, violence etc.
Where I a live it is a brand new private estate (less than a year old) but part of the deal with the developers includes the provision of a certain amount of social housing (I think that now when planning applications are granted this has become law).
There are two area of social housing, one for people with specific needs and aimed at disabled residents who are all lovely and very appreciative of their purpose built bungalows and another area for those who would have traditionally been housed in council properties. From day one the second group have caused problems. Within 48 hrs of the houses being released by the builders they were smashing their own and neighbours' windows. Social services had to be called because it appeared that a child was being beaten and some of the youths living there roam around vandalising cars.
There is massive resentment from the second group of social housing residents towards the private owners, even though they are living in identical houses at a fraction of the cost. Yes, we have better cars but that's because we are all in work and paying a price for them rather than sitting around at home (some of them out at the front with their armchairs on the pavement!) all day.
I am heartily sick of hearing their drunken brawls at 2a.m., their kids f'ing and jeffin' at each other and their out of control dogs cr*pping on the open areas that should be for kids to play. The housing association doesn't seem to give a mouldy carrot for their behaviour and if I had realised what it would be like then I would have thought twice about buying the property...
Most will be on a starter tenancy agreement if that's the case. If you make it known to the housing association officer in charge of those properties, then they can extend that starter tenancy and make it easier to evict them if they continue with anti social behaviour.
Politicians and chief execs of the councils will trot out the excuses for poor behaviour on social exclusion, poverty etc. But try talking to the real people on the front line, who deal with these people on a daily basis. Most will tell you that the problem is lack of discipline,respect and a total lack of consequence in most cases for these tenants appalling behaviour. For example, I used to repair the hallway lights in a block of flats every few weeks. The HA knew who did the damage, yet did nothing apart from send someone to fix the lights. When this family was eventually evicted they trashed their flat, which took nearly a Month to repair. And was rehoused by another housing association a few weeks later.
I've always said if these people want to behave like animals, then they should get nothing but a tent in a field. There they can play their music as loud as they want, ordefecate outside their front door without bothering decent human beings.
Scotland has a lot of laws England should emulate. That is one of them.
My other (nice) neighbours bought their council houses, and they all think that our council has put these people in, knowing how bad they were, thinking they can sink them without trace if it is a remote place, rather than a big housing estate, where there are only a handful of other residents affected. They also all seem to believe that our council don't care or rather, actively want these tenants as they're on full housing ben (minus the bedroom tax) so are sure payers, or at least, guaranteed to pay most of the rent.
I think maybe it is less black and white - the council should have asked for more references or refs to cover a longer period, as it would have exposed these people as antisocial tenants with previous and they would never have had a right to be housed, according to the rules of this council, anyway. And I know the council didn't even go and check on their record with SS and police until after complaints were received. If they'd run those checks beforehand, they could have made a fairer decision on whether to waste a good 3 bed house on these people, or not. If they think that would cause more cost and admin - the cost of an hour or two's legwork running checks, is far less than the cost of having to deal with the legal process of eviction.
Housing policy has always been about social control one way or another - shove them all on a sink estate, or else dot them around separately. But I think in my council's case, the council were just naive and maybe tenants should lobby for stricter controls on who gets offered new tenancies - more rigorous checks, etc. However, for all my other (nice) neighbours, to a man/woman, they all think it was cynical and the council knew these people were arsehats, but didn't care.
Councils and HA do alot more check than you think, why would a council do police checks and SS checks, answer me this can a private landlord do police checks and SS checks no, can a HA do these checks no what makes you think council housing departments have the legal right to do police and SS cheaks, i can tell you they DONT have the legal right.
That's why they should be put together away from anyone else. But why waste public money on giving them houses? If they can't look after their property and behave themselves, give them a ruddy tent. On an uninhabited island.
:D:D:D:D
I am in a bit of agreement about putting bad neighbours together though. It must be awful if you want to keep your bit nice and behave respectfully - then you get the neighbours from hell next door.
Comments
Same thing happened in Nottingham during the 60s slum clearances. One particular street had a very bad reputation and some people wanted to move them en masse to a new street elsewhere but keep them together. The council said no, saying that if they were split up and moved separately to better areas they would learn to live properly., but the opposite happened, like a rotten apples they spread and brought down the whole area, turning the new estates into new slums.
But councils can't really do the in depth checks on people coming in from another area. The nightmare neighbours they moved in next to us, it turns out, had been thrown out of York social housing and were having to live in a private rental til our council generously offered them a house. Their record of antisocial behaviour hadn't shown up as the council only ask for a reference from the latest landlord - that one had no trouble with them, as they'd gone to a detached house, as a result of not being able to live peacefully with neighbours in a semi-detached. Had the council asked for say, references going back 5 years, or a set number of references - they would have been found out.
A council has no statutory duty to re-house people who have been kicked out from other social housing, for not paying rent or antisocial behaviour, we were told - so in other words, there is no need for them ever to re-house people with a record of abusive or threatening behaviour. The trouble is they don't dig deep enough.
It was only after our new neighbours started causing problems for everyone on our little street that the council officers even went to check out their criminal records/record with SS (which apparently councils can do).
So they tend to offer a tenancy with minimal checks and searches, then deal with the fallout after. Our's are now looking to evict these idiots - a lengthy and costly process which would have been utterly avoidable, had the council looked more closely into these tenants in the first place. They are on their last chance - they have to improve their behaviours or they will get the bums' rush. But even then it will take months as antisocial bolshy people tend to 'know their rights' and will push the procedure through every appeal.
I work in Nottingham and they still have a policy of putting people evicted from social housing into particular areas (Forest Fields/Gregory Boulevard being one) as it's not difficult to get a place there, due to the high levels of anti social behaviour and violent crime.
That is generally the preferred option of housing departments and planners, but in practice it rarely happens.
Because a big proportion of social housing is provided by developers under Section 106 agreements, councils don't have a lot of say in where it goes. Developers don't want a scattering of council tenants in amongst their "executive" housing as they believe it will make it less attractive to buyers, so they usually insist it's all stuck together in the least attractive, least convenient, corner of the site.
I've seen many developments where the social housing is of a completely different design from, and using materials inferior to, those used elsewhere on the estate and it would stick out like a sore thumb if it wasn't tucked away in some gloomy corner.
LOL.
I was in a part of Dover last year and there was a full washing line in several of the front gardens.
The neighbours around here are largely fine, petty little things like dog mess, roaming cats, parking annoyances but nothing major.
Until the lad upstairs moved in, he is a walking stereotype and stirred everyone up, made the stairs stink of weed, keep us up until 4-5am, rows with parnter, verbal abusive... the usual.... why I don't know.
But just one dodgy neighbour can ruin a previously peaceful neighbourhood, though that doesn't jsut apply to social housing.
My parents like in a relatively decent area, homes are all owned, professional working and middle class families.... then one evil SOB moved in and the area just went down hill...... horrible people bring out the worst in everyone. People who were freinds for decades fell out because of this guy - even the police said he was a nasty piece of work >:(
Exactly, neighbours from hell don't always have to be in council/social housing properties. I hear loads of people in disputes that have turned nasty over fences, hedging and parking, on private estates. A friend of mine at the moment is having loads of hassle with her neighbour over a hedge. Said neighbour shouting abusive language now to my friend whenever she leaves her house, and they both own their homes on a private estate. Simarlarly the neighbours ruining our peaceful street are in a private tented home.
Where I a live it is a brand new private estate (less than a year old) but part of the deal with the developers includes the provision of a certain amount of social housing (I think that now when planning applications are granted this has become law).
There are two area of social housing, one for people with specific needs and aimed at disabled residents who are all lovely and very appreciative of their purpose built bungalows and another area for those who would have traditionally been housed in council properties. From day one the second group have caused problems. Within 48 hrs of the houses being released by the builders they were smashing their own and neighbours' windows. Social services had to be called because it appeared that a child was being beaten and some of the youths living there roam around vandalising cars.
There is massive resentment from the second group of social housing residents towards the private owners, even though they are living in identical houses at a fraction of the cost. Yes, we have better cars but that's because we are all in work and paying a price for them rather than sitting around at home (some of them out at the front with their armchairs on the pavement!) all day.
I am heartily sick of hearing their drunken brawls at 2a.m., their kids f'ing and jeffin' at each other and their out of control dogs cr*pping on the open areas that should be for kids to play. The housing association doesn't seem to give a mouldy carrot for their behaviour and if I had realised what it would be like then I would have thought twice about buying the property...
One reason I never wanted to own my own home ever again was when we bought a house next door to an alcoholic who sang loudly and let out streams of abuse, day and night. Turned out the authorities knew all about him and could do nothing as his family owned the house, and he was a registered alcoholic so essentially, bombproof. At least if they're tenants, private or HA or council, you stand a remote chance of eventually being able to secure an eviction order.
But yes, I feel a lot of the problem stems from envy that everyone round them is working, and boredom - they have long days to fill. Conflict keeps them occupied. And also a childlike state of expecting to be given everything (I even heard my neighbour whining loudly that the council hadn't bought him carpets! Blimey you have just been given a house that is too big for you with two hundred foot gardens, in a pretty village - for free - isn't that enough?)
http://www.checkmyarea.com/hotlinks/about.html
One of my old workplaces used a similar system.
To have the social housing scattered amongst private housing so there's no concentration, to have the social housing tenants sign acceptable conduct agreements as part of their tenancy and to have a firm disciplinary and eviction/sin bin policy - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/apr/12/socialexclusion.uknews.
That said private sector housing tenants and home owners can be equally guilty of poor conduct.
Absolutely, it's still a system driven by money. Understandably so though, you wouldn't want your affordable housing in the prime location.
The use of cheaper materials is understandable too, given that often affordable housing is much larger than private.
When it comes to numbers, asking for about 40% affordable is going to end up with them put in an apartment block just to save on cost... But at least they are being built!
When I was younger and my parents have told me, it was the case that the council houses were always far nicer than private, indoor toilets and electricity that others didn't have.
l am sorry to hear that account - no one should have to put up with behaviour like that. Scotland, to its credit, has much tougher legislation on this matter so that bad neighbour home owners can even be barred from their own home as a last resort:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-130140829.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23591753.html
(they lost the house in the end)
I agree. They definitely have estates they earmark for the worst shits in the borough.
Scotland has a lot of laws England should emulate. That is one of them.
My other (nice) neighbours bought their council houses, and they all think that our council has put these people in, knowing how bad they were, thinking they can sink them without trace if it is a remote place, rather than a big housing estate, where there are only a handful of other residents affected. They also all seem to believe that our council don't care or rather, actively want these tenants as they're on full housing ben (minus the bedroom tax) so are sure payers, or at least, guaranteed to pay most of the rent.
I think maybe it is less black and white - the council should have asked for more references or refs to cover a longer period, as it would have exposed these people as antisocial tenants with previous and they would never have had a right to be housed, according to the rules of this council, anyway. And I know the council didn't even go and check on their record with SS and police until after complaints were received. If they'd run those checks beforehand, they could have made a fairer decision on whether to waste a good 3 bed house on these people, or not. If they think that would cause more cost and admin - the cost of an hour or two's legwork running checks, is far less than the cost of having to deal with the legal process of eviction.
Housing policy has always been about social control one way or another - shove them all on a sink estate, or else dot them around separately. But I think in my council's case, the council were just naive and maybe tenants should lobby for stricter controls on who gets offered new tenancies - more rigorous checks, etc. However, for all my other (nice) neighbours, to a man/woman, they all think it was cynical and the council knew these people were arsehats, but didn't care.
Must be nice living in your rose tinted world.:o
Benefit street strikes a chord...lol.
Most will be on a starter tenancy agreement if that's the case. If you make it known to the housing association officer in charge of those properties, then they can extend that starter tenancy and make it easier to evict them if they continue with anti social behaviour.
Politicians and chief execs of the councils will trot out the excuses for poor behaviour on social exclusion, poverty etc. But try talking to the real people on the front line, who deal with these people on a daily basis. Most will tell you that the problem is lack of discipline,respect and a total lack of consequence in most cases for these tenants appalling behaviour. For example, I used to repair the hallway lights in a block of flats every few weeks. The HA knew who did the damage, yet did nothing apart from send someone to fix the lights. When this family was eventually evicted they trashed their flat, which took nearly a Month to repair. And was rehoused by another housing association a few weeks later.
I've always said if these people want to behave like animals, then they should get nothing but a tent in a field. There they can play their music as loud as they want, ordefecate outside their front door without bothering decent human beings.
Councils and HA do alot more check than you think, why would a council do police checks and SS checks, answer me this can a private landlord do police checks and SS checks no, can a HA do these checks no what makes you think council housing departments have the legal right to do police and SS cheaks, i can tell you they DONT have the legal right.
I am in a bit of agreement about putting bad neighbours together though. It must be awful if you want to keep your bit nice and behave respectfully - then you get the neighbours from hell next door.