Return to the £50k eviction

I would like to respond to Paola Gorrara’s letter (18 June, page 24). Croydon Churches certainly did not “forget the victims” – that’s why we went to extraordinary lengths to see through the case to the end. We provided extra support to the victims throughout the process and I think that most registered social landlords would have done exactly the same in similar circumstances.

It was the court system that frustrated and delayed our case. No amount of zero tolerance would have made the slightest difference to the time it took to resolve the case. Indeed, that was the main thrust of “The 50k eviction”, the original article about the case (4 June, page 16).

As for human and civil rights, I think Gorrara misses the point. In our case, the perpetrator’s rights seemed to far outweigh the rights of the victim. She was able to lodge appeal after appeal for almost two years – all at public expense. The victims had no such support from the system. Most people would expect a fairer balance of support.

On a related issue, by the end of 2004, RSLs and other public sector landlords will be required to set out their policies for combating antisocial behaviour. I have no doubt that regulatory intervention will await those that fail to follow the statutory guidance, shortly to be issued by the ODPM.

I have no problem with that, but almost every commentator on this subject accepts that bad behaviour can only be properly resolved by a joined-up approach involving all the agencies – including the court system.

Can I assume that the regulatory “big stick” will also be used on the legal system, where its failures might result in a landlord failing to meet the statutory guidance?