Mother of Rhys Jones' killer faces eviction
The mother of Rhys Jones’ killer is facing eviction from her Merseyside home after running up more than £2,000 in rent arrears.
Yesterday, lawyers for Riverside Housing Trust told Liverpool county court that Janette Mercer, 50, had failed to pay rent since being jailed for three years in April for lying to cover up her son’s crime.
Paul Burns, representing the housing association, also cited a string of anti-social behaviour from Ms Mercer’s other children towards neighbours.
Mr Burns said Danielle Mercer, 25, and Joseph Mercer, 14, were ‘threatening and abusive’, and harassed their next door neighbours so much they were forced to move from Good Shepherd Close.
‘The actions of Janette Mercer and her family have devastated this community and attracted the attention of the nation,’ he said.
‘Sean Mercer was a member of the Croxteth Crew and gloried in being part of the gang culture.
‘Apart from the matters which brought him to the attention of the criminal courts, he was a source of serious anti-social behaviour.’
Sean Mercer was sentenced to 22 years in jail last December, aged 18, for murdering 11-year-old Rhys Jones. He shot the schoolboy by accident while attempting to fire on members of a rival gang.
Ms Mercer, who is representing herself, did not attend the trial yesterday, but sent a letter to the court. The letter explained Danielle was still living in the house, but that Joseph only visited at weekends.
The hearing continues today.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (11)
Melvin Bone | 08/10/2009 12:04 pm
Anti-social behaviour, murder, rent arrears and refusal to pay rent.
It seems so straightforward.
It is ridiculous the number of hoops that need to be jumped through to evict stubborn tenants.
Mind you it would take even longer in some Scottish authorities.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 08/10/2009 1:51 pm
Its not straightforward at all. The tenant is having the eviction sought for rent arrears and asb. However it can be if Ground 8 - the law by the way - was used and on the basis that arrears have accrued in the last 8 weeks. Why any landlord is loathe to use this ground is beyond me. It is a mandatory eviction that the court have no discretion over. Why the hell the asb and anything else has to be raised is down only to the landlord.
The hoops are in the landlords court here not the law.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 08/10/2009 2:15 pm
If my memory of the red tops is correct about the time of his sentencing wasn't she revealed to be a "working girl"?? Clearly the recession is biting in all sectors!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 08/10/2009 2:18 pm
I must admit my ignorance to Ground 8 as I am only really familiar with secure tenancies. However after a quick look at the law I can see why it would be useful in this and many other circumstances.
It is a sledgehammer piece of legislation that would be useful in this case.
Maybe these RSLs are all softies at heart...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 08/10/2009 2:54 pm
Why hasnt Ground 8 been used? Why is this case any different from any other arrears case, or specifically any other arrears case with criminal convictions?
Say it was a convicted drug dealer that also had arrears. Why would any landlord not use Ground 8 in these circumstances?
And Melvin, its not a sledgehammer or unjust, it is the law. Setting aside HB cock-ups and the legal procedure is correct why should any tenant 8 weeks and more in arrears not get evicted as a matter of law?
Yet in cases such as this with convicted criminal offences and the asb - both of which on their own are incredibly difficult grounds to evict upon alone, is Ground 8 not used? Why should such people be given continued security of tenure the same as all law-abiding tenants?
If you were to ask tenants should these cases be evicted and should Ground 8 be used as it achieves the end of eviction - which is surely what the landlord is seeking to achieve - im certain the answer would be a resounding yes! So why is it not used in this and other cases?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 09/10/2009 5:20 pm
Joe Halewood | Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:54 GMT....
with arrears and current law in England the landlord can use ground 8... However the landlord before doing so must have exhausted any other means they are required to do to recover arrears. Independently of any other reason seeking eviction, if a tenant is prepared to pay arrears in some way or form the landlord will finnd very hard to evict. It depends whether she is just in arrears and is prepared to pay them back with an agreement with the landlord or she is refusing to pay the rent/arrears full stop. In the second case the eviction is straightforward, in the first might not even be possible... the other point here, is there a reason why her arrears have been allowed to get so high? If the fault of this lies with the benefit system or the landlord, then she cannot be evicted
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 09/10/2009 5:54 pm
Kass
The landlords may be expected to exhaust all other avenues but dont necessarily have to do so. A subtle but distinct difference.
The tenant was sentenced to three years jail in April and hence HB is not due and cant be due under HB regs. So although you may not like the notion the fault is neither HBs or the landlord. Further i fail to see how she can pay towards arrears when in jail.
Hence the landlord in this case does not in my view have to exhaust all areas but could have gone straight to using ground 8. Why it didnt is the answer im looking for because they did have legal cause to go straight to it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 09/10/2009 6:03 pm
Just to substantiate my point on expectation etc- please see verbatim extract from the Weaver case below: -
"Before the Divisional Court Mrs Weaver lost comprehensively on the merits of her claim. She wholly failed in her claim that the Trust had evicted her in breach of a legitimate expectation arising out of Guidance issued by the Housing Corporation, and that to evict her from her home would interfere with her rights under Article 8. It was held that the claimed legitimate expectation that Housing Act 1988, sched 2, ground 8 (arrears of rent) would not be used was far too tenuous and general to be enforceable in public law, and there was in any event no breach of it"
So not only is the (claimed) expectation a general one it is un-enforceable in law.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 09/10/2009 6:03 pm
Just to substantiate my point on expectation etc- please see verbatim extract from the Weaver case below: -
"Before the Divisional Court Mrs Weaver lost comprehensively on the merits of her claim. She wholly failed in her claim that the Trust had evicted her in breach of a legitimate expectation arising out of Guidance issued by the Housing Corporation, and that to evict her from her home would interfere with her rights under Article 8. It was held that the claimed legitimate expectation that Housing Act 1988, sched 2, ground 8 (arrears of rent) would not be used was far too tenuous and general to be enforceable in public law, and there was in any event no breach of it"
So not only is the (claimed) expectation a general one it is un-enforceable in law.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 09/10/2009 6:12 pm
Or further from the same judgment
106. In the divisional court Richards LJ held as follows:
“85…the claimed legitimate expectation is far too tenuous and general in character to be enforceable in public law, and there was in any event no breach of it.
86. The claimant herself has not given evidence that she had the expectation alleged or even that she knew of the term of the contract from which the expectation is said to have arisen…Thus the expectation is simply an artificial construct derived from the standard terms and conditions and attributed to the claimant, rather than a genuinely held expectation of her own…
87. As to the representation itself…I do not think that it can be read as a clear, unambiguous and unqualified promise or commitment to do everything set out in the guidance issued by the Housing Corporation. The guidance is by its nature guidance, not prescription. The regulatory provisions to which I have referred place the Housing Corporation in a strong position to ensure that it is substantially followed, but there is nothing that turns it into the equivalent of a statutory rule-book, and the Housing Corporation looks not just at whether the guidance has been followed but at whether alternative action has been taken to achieve the same objectives…The statement in [the Trust’s] standard terms and conditions cannot have been intended to give the guidance a status it does not have under the statute or in the Housing Corporation’s own practice. At most, Mr Arden’s description of it as a “target duty” is more apt. Moreover, if the statement has the character of a promise, there is no reason why it should not be treated as a contractual promise, since it features in the contractual terms and conditions; but it is no part of the claimant’s case that the statement is contractually binding. If it lacks the qualities to give it contractual force notwithstanding that it is located in a contract, I am not satisfied that it can properly be treated as having the qualities that justify its enforcement in public law as a legitimate expectation…
89. Thus, even if I were to accept the existence of a legitimate expectation in terms of the relevant guidance, that is a promise or commitment on the part of [the Trust] to pursue all reasonable alternatives to recover the debt before using ground 8, I would not find a breach of it on the facts of this case…I do not accept that the pursuit of all reasonable alternatives requires possession proceedings to be brought first on ground 10 or 11 before reliance can be placed on ground 8…
90. Looking at the overall history of [the Trust’s] dealings with the claimant, I am not persuaded that [the Trust] failed to use all reasonable alternatives to recover the debt before using ground 8. In particular, in the light of the history of substantial and repeated defaults, [the Trust] was in my view entitled to take the view that reliance on ground 10 or 11 did not provide a reasonable alternative means of recovering the debt, and its reliance on ground 8 was in the circumstances in accordance with the relevant guidance and justified…”
Pretty damn clear that othe grounds for recovery of arrears dont have to be used before Ground 8.
And it is makes 'all other routes before using ' even less than an expectation and hence is legally otioise
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment