What happens to your home when you get put inside?
Discussion
No it isn't happening to me!
Reading about people getting put away sometimes makes me wonder what happens to their stuff.
Does a copper pop round to check that the gas is turned off? Does anyone tell the utility companies not to bother with this address? Is the house sold? Stuff put into storage? Are people put away for a long time automatically declared bankrupt because if not they'd owe tens of thousands when they got out!
What about pets? Are they rehoused or destroyed?
Stuff sold to provide compensation to victims?
Just something I've wondered about before.
Reading about people getting put away sometimes makes me wonder what happens to their stuff.
Does a copper pop round to check that the gas is turned off? Does anyone tell the utility companies not to bother with this address? Is the house sold? Stuff put into storage? Are people put away for a long time automatically declared bankrupt because if not they'd owe tens of thousands when they got out!
What about pets? Are they rehoused or destroyed?
Stuff sold to provide compensation to victims?
Just something I've wondered about before.
jasandjules said:
I assume it would depend on the offence the person had been put in jail for and then whether anyone else owns/lives in that house.
After all, would be a bit mean of the cops to sell everything there under POCA if the guy was only renting........
Where I was looking they didn't seem to notice, the vans were down to their bumpstops...maybe just a one-off prolific example? Don't know how it works really, but sure I guess they leave the council fitments After all, would be a bit mean of the cops to sell everything there under POCA if the guy was only renting........
I believe that if one is a council tenant then housing benefit will be paid for some time - whether on remand or post-sentencing - but I don't have the details.
My job is related to council housing, and I have been very recently aware of jailed tenants having Housing Benefit claim forms posted to them, these forms being returned and then housing (and council tax?) benefits being backdated to maintain the rent. This is usually for short/remand jail/YOI terms (a couple of months for something like assault, as an example), where it is expected the tenant will be back in his tenancy shortly.
Equally, from around 5 years ago, I am aware of tenants that have been sent to jail long term (sentence of several years or more, for whatever reason/offence) - the tenant is sent a form to 'terminate' his tenancy and the tenancy ends with the council then clearing the property - I believe that relatives/next of kin can take what they like, and the council tip the rest and recharge the tenant (seems a bit pointless...).
And when said former tenant came out of jail, he used to go right to the top of the housing list (up to a few years ago, locally)... but I suspect this has changed in the last few years.
I guess the same applies to privately-rented accomodation, but if it's a short term contract then the landlord would take it back at the end of the term regardless, and put any loss down to experience?
What happens to one's house if one owns it I do not know, but presuming it's not confiscated under 'proceeds of crime' then wouldn't the jailed occupier's family have an interest and look after it/sell it/whatever?
Good original question though
.
My job is related to council housing, and I have been very recently aware of jailed tenants having Housing Benefit claim forms posted to them, these forms being returned and then housing (and council tax?) benefits being backdated to maintain the rent. This is usually for short/remand jail/YOI terms (a couple of months for something like assault, as an example), where it is expected the tenant will be back in his tenancy shortly.
Equally, from around 5 years ago, I am aware of tenants that have been sent to jail long term (sentence of several years or more, for whatever reason/offence) - the tenant is sent a form to 'terminate' his tenancy and the tenancy ends with the council then clearing the property - I believe that relatives/next of kin can take what they like, and the council tip the rest and recharge the tenant (seems a bit pointless...).
And when said former tenant came out of jail, he used to go right to the top of the housing list (up to a few years ago, locally)... but I suspect this has changed in the last few years.
I guess the same applies to privately-rented accomodation, but if it's a short term contract then the landlord would take it back at the end of the term regardless, and put any loss down to experience?
What happens to one's house if one owns it I do not know, but presuming it's not confiscated under 'proceeds of crime' then wouldn't the jailed occupier's family have an interest and look after it/sell it/whatever?
Good original question though
. F.M said:
What if the guy was locked up for GBH or similar ..would the POCA still apply considering there are no profits made from the crime...?
POCA is there to get assets of criminals. Getting done with GBH might bring your other illegal activities to the attention od bib's. They don't even need to get you through the criminal court they can get you under a civil court. Kind of Al Capone stuff. Can't get him for racketeering so through the book at him for tax evasion. Bib's win anyway bad guy off the street.
aw51 121565 said:
I believe that if one is a council tenant then housing benefit will be paid for some time - whether on remand or post-sentencing - but I don't have the details.
My job is related to council housing, and I have been very recently aware of jailed tenants having Housing Benefit claim forms posted to them, these forms being returned and then housing (and council tax?) benefits being backdated to maintain the rent. This is usually for short/remand jail/YOI terms (a couple of months for something like assault, as an example), where it is expected the tenant will be back in his tenancy shortly.
Equally, from around 5 years ago, I am aware of tenants that have been sent to jail long term (sentence of several years or more, for whatever reason/offence) - the tenant is sent a form to 'terminate' his tenancy and the tenancy ends with the council then clearing the property - I believe that relatives/next of kin can take what they like, and the council tip the rest and recharge the tenant (seems a bit pointless...).
And when said former tenant came out of jail, he used to go right to the top of the housing list (up to a few years ago, locally)... but I suspect this has changed in the last few years.
I guess the same applies to privately-rented accomodation, but if it's a short term contract then the landlord would take it back at the end of the term regardless, and put any loss down to experience?
What happens to one's house if one owns it I do not know, but presuming it's not confiscated under 'proceeds of crime' then wouldn't the jailed occupier's family have an interest and look after it/sell it/whatever?
Good original question though .
My job is related to council housing, and I have been very recently aware of jailed tenants having Housing Benefit claim forms posted to them, these forms being returned and then housing (and council tax?) benefits being backdated to maintain the rent. This is usually for short/remand jail/YOI terms (a couple of months for something like assault, as an example), where it is expected the tenant will be back in his tenancy shortly.
Equally, from around 5 years ago, I am aware of tenants that have been sent to jail long term (sentence of several years or more, for whatever reason/offence) - the tenant is sent a form to 'terminate' his tenancy and the tenancy ends with the council then clearing the property - I believe that relatives/next of kin can take what they like, and the council tip the rest and recharge the tenant (seems a bit pointless...).
And when said former tenant came out of jail, he used to go right to the top of the housing list (up to a few years ago, locally)... but I suspect this has changed in the last few years.
I guess the same applies to privately-rented accomodation, but if it's a short term contract then the landlord would take it back at the end of the term regardless, and put any loss down to experience?
What happens to one's house if one owns it I do not know, but presuming it's not confiscated under 'proceeds of crime' then wouldn't the jailed occupier's family have an interest and look after it/sell it/whatever?
Good original question though
.I seem to recall a sitcom which set the excellent actress Pauline Quirke on the map.. (I think she proven herself to be a decent character actress in the things seen since the rather silly sitcom involving tow laddettes und old "slapper" next door - but the karaoke sketch with Doprian was what I'd call "classic"
But if I remember rightly .. chav bling con man und his brother-in-lwa (Quirke's husband were banged to rights for dodgy dealings und Trayceee kept the family home (purchased by dodgy dealings) und sister moved in - but still kept tenancy of sorts of council house. I think if person owns house und spouse can maintain or keep up mortgage repays - it ist not repossessed. Archer's und Aitken's homes were not confiscated because they broke the law..
I think they still go to top of housing list as if homeless - they end up in rut of recidivist criminal behaviour all the more ..I think ist not a pee-cee nonsense - but right that a civilised society ist not seen to cause more bother as sentence served. Ja.. perhaps we should try to redeem und educate to expect more und better by legal means during the prison term - whilst punishing by removing freedom und making obey rigid regime whilst "inside". If you do nothing to at least try .. then cycle continues und soul destroying for normally "law abiding" police und public alike.
I use inverted commas because we all break some law or other .. like playing with conkers without goggles whatever ., 
So many new laws each day - we must all break more than a speeding lolly one as routine 
WildCat said:
aw51 121565 said:
I believe that if one is a council tenant then housing benefit will be paid for some time - whether on remand or post-sentencing - but I don't have the details.
My job is related to council housing, and I have been very recently aware of jailed tenants having Housing Benefit claim forms posted to them, these forms being returned and then housing (and council tax?) benefits being backdated to maintain the rent. This is usually for short/remand jail/YOI terms (a couple of months for something like assault, as an example), where it is expected the tenant will be back in his tenancy shortly.
Equally, from around 5 years ago, I am aware of tenants that have been sent to jail long term (sentence of several years or more, for whatever reason/offence) - the tenant is sent a form to 'terminate' his tenancy and the tenancy ends with the council then clearing the property - I believe that relatives/next of kin can take what they like, and the council tip the rest and recharge the tenant (seems a bit pointless...).
And when said former tenant came out of jail, he used to go right to the top of the housing list (up to a few years ago, locally)... but I suspect this has changed in the last few years.
I guess the same applies to privately-rented accomodation, but if it's a short term contract then the landlord would take it back at the end of the term regardless, and put any loss down to experience?
What happens to one's house if one owns it I do not know, but presuming it's not confiscated under 'proceeds of crime' then wouldn't the jailed occupier's family have an interest and look after it/sell it/whatever?
Good original question though .
My job is related to council housing, and I have been very recently aware of jailed tenants having Housing Benefit claim forms posted to them, these forms being returned and then housing (and council tax?) benefits being backdated to maintain the rent. This is usually for short/remand jail/YOI terms (a couple of months for something like assault, as an example), where it is expected the tenant will be back in his tenancy shortly.
Equally, from around 5 years ago, I am aware of tenants that have been sent to jail long term (sentence of several years or more, for whatever reason/offence) - the tenant is sent a form to 'terminate' his tenancy and the tenancy ends with the council then clearing the property - I believe that relatives/next of kin can take what they like, and the council tip the rest and recharge the tenant (seems a bit pointless...).
And when said former tenant came out of jail, he used to go right to the top of the housing list (up to a few years ago, locally)... but I suspect this has changed in the last few years.
I guess the same applies to privately-rented accomodation, but if it's a short term contract then the landlord would take it back at the end of the term regardless, and put any loss down to experience?
What happens to one's house if one owns it I do not know, but presuming it's not confiscated under 'proceeds of crime' then wouldn't the jailed occupier's family have an interest and look after it/sell it/whatever?
Good original question though
.I seem to recall a sitcom which set the excellent actress Pauline Quirke on the map.. (I think she proven herself to be a decent character actress in the things seen since the rather silly sitcom involving tow laddettes und old "slapper" next door - but the karaoke sketch with Doprian was what I'd call "classic"
But if I remember rightly .. chav bling con man und his brother-in-lwa (Quirke's husband were banged to rights for dodgy dealings und Trayceee kept the family home (purchased by dodgy dealings) und sister moved in - but still kept tenancy of sorts of council house. I think if person owns house und spouse can maintain or keep up mortgage repays - it ist not repossessed. Archer's und Aitken's homes were not confiscated because they broke the law..
I think they still go to top of housing list as if homeless - they end up in rut of recidivist criminal behaviour all the more ..I think ist not a pee-cee nonsense - but right that a civilised society ist not seen to cause more bother as sentence served. Ja.. perhaps we should try to redeem und educate to expect more und better by legal means during the prison term - whilst punishing by removing freedom und making obey rigid regime whilst "inside". If you do nothing to at least try .. then cycle continues und soul destroying for normally "law abiding" police und public alike.
I use inverted commas because we all break some law or other .. like playing with conkers without goggles whatever ., So many new laws each day - we must all break more than a speeding lolly one as routine I can vaguely remember this program with Pauline Quirke (I'm in my mid-30s) - but the "proceeds of crime" law wasn't in place at that time I don't think, so her keeping the tenancy would be representative of the situation at that time.
But there's still the 'succession of tenancy' law, whereby if a tenant and A. N. Other have lived in the same property for a year or more then A. N Other can 'succeed' ([u]i.e.[/u] effectively take over) the tenancy from the tenant - and from memory A. N. Other doesn't have to be a relation to the tenant. Only thing is, the tenant has to agree to A. N. Other taking the tenancy over.
Did you know that, in a joint tenancy (two seperate names on the tenancy, not necesssarily married or a couple), one of the tenants can end the tenancy without the other tenant's knowledge, thereby possibly making the other tenant homeless? That's a digression though...
I agree that it's important that people just out of prison need somewhere to live and to settle down - but the tenants that disappear for a few months then return often aren't very communicative (is this what got them into prison in the first place???), so I would argue that they often don't help themselves (but they often have mental health issues also - I doubt this is addressed to any great degree in prison in the few months they are in there).
Then the tenants that eventually disappear into prison for long sentences for nasty stuff, that come across as so charming (and they generally do!)... one example that springs to my mind is the chap in the middle of 'sex reassignment' who murdered his partner after a disagreement, and another is a chap that practised paedophilia.
The former chap was sentenced to a few years for manslaughter, then on release raped a lady (not a tenant when he did this) and then got a life sentence (3 strikes law - this was his third crime).
The latter chap had previously been found guilty of paedophilia, and was housed in council houses locally three times with two prison sentences between the tenancies (one could find where he lived by the metaphorical trail of broken glass and "boarded windows" every night, as the locals took the law into their own hands). This chap was finally given a long prison sentence after his third paedophilia conviction while he lived in the local area.
Society, especially rehabilitation in prison, failed both these tenants (and please explain the 'mob rule' leading to the latter chap getting his windows smashed?!? That is society at war with itself!), and they are both now serving long prison sentences. The cases of both these tenants were in the Manchester Evening News in the last 5 years or so.
fluffnik said:
Gently Bentley said:
POCA is there to get assets of criminals.
Nope, mostly it's about punishing presumed crimes in the absence of evidence.
Yes, confiscate the proceeds of crime, if they are beyond doubt the proceeds of crime, but not otherwise.
Hear, hear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_i
Summary confiscation of legally owned property. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
zumbruk said:
fluffnik said:
Gently Bentley said:
POCA is there to get assets of criminals.
Nope, mostly it's about punishing presumed crimes in the absence of evidence.
Yes, confiscate the proceeds of crime, if they are beyond doubt the proceeds of crime, but not otherwise.
Hear, hear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_i
Summary confiscation of legally owned property. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
It can be hard to understand news reports sometimes. He was apparently acquited of VAT fraud but handed over some of his money anyway. Bizarre.
fluffnik said:
Gently Bentley said:
POCA is there to get assets of criminals.
Nope, mostly it's about punishing presumed crimes in the absence of evidence.
Yes, confiscate the proceeds of crime, if they are beyond doubt the proceeds of crime, but not otherwise.
It certainly is not.
if someone has built up assets over a period of time then the law enforcement authorities (not just plod) can apply to the courts to have the assets confiscated. This is dealt with by the civil courts and has nothing to do wit a specific crime.
Read POCA because it appears you either have not or you just have not understood the legislation.
Example. Millionaire who does not work and cannot prove how he/she got the money or funds the life style. There may only be an intelligence case against them. A drug lord who is not hands on or a money lender who is not hands on or a so called business man who is now legit but built up an empire of crime years ago. The Krays would have got hit like this and all there flash cars and night clubs given to the crown.To state punishing presumed crimes in the absence of evidence is not accurate. A proved criminal charge and a POCA can run along side each other and both can be proved.
After Gently Bentley's post I'm not sure I get this now. Happy to admit not reading POCA.
Even so, if someone isn't guilty of any crime but has a 'suspicious' amount of goods and chattels, is GB's post saying that The State in all its pomp and power can apply to have their possessions seized? Why?
What right minded person wouldn't want to see ill gotten gains get grabbed, but if somebody has committed no crime, it shouldn't be a matter of them proving how they acquired their property it should be for The State to prove it was all acquired illegally.
Any person is innocent until proven guilty, and no self-incrimination immoral shenanigans should enter into it either. Let's hope this isn't more lazy incompetence from officialdom.
Even so, if someone isn't guilty of any crime but has a 'suspicious' amount of goods and chattels, is GB's post saying that The State in all its pomp and power can apply to have their possessions seized? Why?
What right minded person wouldn't want to see ill gotten gains get grabbed, but if somebody has committed no crime, it shouldn't be a matter of them proving how they acquired their property it should be for The State to prove it was all acquired illegally.
Any person is innocent until proven guilty, and no self-incrimination immoral shenanigans should enter into it either. Let's hope this isn't more lazy incompetence from officialdom.
turbobloke said:
After Gently Bentley's post I'm not sure I get this now. Happy to admit not reading POCA.
Even so, if someone isn't guilty of any crime but has a 'suspicious' amount of goods and chattels, is GB's post saying that The State in all its pomp and power can apply to have their possessions seized? Why?
What right minded person wouldn't want to see ill gotten gains get grabbed, but if somebody has committed no crime, it shouldn't be a matter of them proving how they acquired their property it should be for The State to prove it was all acquired illegally.
Any person is innocent until proven guilty, and no self-incrimination immoral shenanigans should enter into it either. Let's hope this isn't more lazy incompetence from officialdom.
Even so, if someone isn't guilty of any crime but has a 'suspicious' amount of goods and chattels, is GB's post saying that The State in all its pomp and power can apply to have their possessions seized? Why?
What right minded person wouldn't want to see ill gotten gains get grabbed, but if somebody has committed no crime, it shouldn't be a matter of them proving how they acquired their property it should be for The State to prove it was all acquired illegally.
Any person is innocent until proven guilty, and no self-incrimination immoral shenanigans should enter into it either. Let's hope this isn't more lazy incompetence from officialdom.
No POCA is not saying that. Let me see.
The authorities have info that a guy who has not been in bother for years but has previous for armed robbery and drug running starts buying shops, posh houses and running about in mega cars blinged up a full one. You say "Hey he never works he is always down the casino or on holiday and has loads of toys like speed boats and a season ticket for the best team and eats in all the fancy food joints" a mafia type dude.
Now you think. This guys a gangster or as they call themselves businesmen.
Or the guy that has the same lifestyle and works beside you earning the same amount of money and you think "Why am I always skint and only manage a week away a year with the kids and drive a modest family car"
Now you think "Why don't plod do something he is obviously dodgy"
So POCA. You do a lot of behind the scene stuff (probably taking a few years) and build up a picture that he is most probably involved in crime. You take it before a civil court NOT CRIMINAL COURT and argue the case the guy is living off the proceeds of crime. This is not just some two minute court case.
The judge says "Yeah hang on plod is right the figures don't add up and this guy can't explain why he has a part time job in a shop and has £2000000 in a swiss bank account £4000000 in shares with BT, 6 houses, a helicopter, 6 cars 2 boats and an original Star Wars Millenium Falcon toy with Han Solo action figure."
So the wig decides what he has to forfiet.
Its totally seperate from charging somebody with a crime.
It applies to every dodgy dude not just the mega rich.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff