Up in arms

Rarely can a single eviction notice have caused such a furore.

The decision by Wandsworth Council to serve a notice of possession on a mother of an 18-year-old boy charged with riot-related offences led to protests this week.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition against the move and the issue has led to interest from the international media, with French television station Canal Plus reporting from outside Wandsworth Magistrates Court.

So what has caused this depth of feeling?

The issue seems to have caused controversy for two reasons. One, because of the way it links alleged crimes committed with the right to hang on to a secure tenancy and secondly, because the whole household could potentially be evicted because of the actions of one person.

Whereas many would accept that eviction is a justified remedy in cases where repeated anti-social behaviour affects neighbours, the idea that a person can be evicted for crimes elsewhere in the locality is more controversial.

‘If they did this across the country there would be 50,000 homeless families’, that’s the claim from Tony Belton, a Labour councillor.

The issue strikes at the heart of what a social landlord is for.

Is social housing a privilege that can be withdrawn by landlords as punishment for offences, regardless of where they take place? Or should a resident have the right to hold on to a secure social housing tenancy regardless of convictions? And is it really fair to evict a whole household for the crime of one person?

Wandsworth Council has said it will withdraw its eviction proceedings if Daniel Sartain-Clarke is acquitted. Even if he is not, the council will need to convince a county court judge to grant an eviction.

The council then is, in one sense, a long way away from carrying out its eviction threat. For this reason some protestors have accused the authority of mere posturing.

Whether that is the case or not, the issue has already prompted a vigorous debate in the housing sector.