I am pleased that someone thought of letting law enforcement officers know the law in relation to evictions in relation to ASB.
I gather from the article that it's training that is going on -- I fail to see why social housing providers via their tenants' rent money should be funding such training specifically for the police but welcome the police being 'an addition' to the training that was already ongoing for staff.
That said, a housing provider wouldn't be continually training their staff in the same stuff so I would have concerns about providers training all the police (they couldn't all fit into 1 training session) from their scant resources.
Providing information about how they (the providers) go about things (such as informing alleged ASB perpetrators of the POSSIBLE end result) is fair enough IMHO funding training of police is a different matter altogether.
I would have thought that the alleged perpetrators responsible (IF they are tenants) would be aware via the housing provider of the sanctions that could be applied.
IF this was not to be the case then the providers may well be better employed training their own staff.
Of course, could it be that the police would have adjudged the alleged perpetrator to be guilty of ASB as a matter of course and without any evidence? Probably not but would that could understandably always be the case considering the ’bad press’ social housing tenants get anyhow!!
The 'duplication' excuse is a nonsense as such 'duplication' would be the use of a sentence (or sentences) -- and for the life of me, I can't see a provider's employee being sent to a tenant to utter a few sentences as being a particular good use of scant resources. Such a visit would/should be one that would take more than just a few words.
Michael Gelling OBE is right to highlight that this appears to RISK the victimisation (and IMHO stigmatisation) of social housing tenants and that the police should not be using 1 set of “rules” for those who rent and those who own -- unless of course the ‘law’ is only to be used on some sections of our society.
Such selective use of ‘the law’ via law enforcement officers would surely be divisive?
Citizens have rights under the law when being questioned by the police -- however, like other public servants, there will be those who may not be (or perceived to be) as user-friendly as they could be.
That said, I appreciate Mr Perry’s ...’ police would not be asking for residents’ tenure details but would point out that if they are in social housing they could be evicted.’ -- however, it could be seen as meaning to convey that non-social tenant alleged perpetrators are the 'lucky ones' as they can't be evicted. More stigmatisation of tenants?