kerrier council are throwing my family on the streets

squinty

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The LA in Cornwall have, rather typically, not adhered to the legislation OR the code of guidance with regard to domestic violence. .

I'm not sure how you can come to this conclsion from the limited information posted.

The code of guidance actually says:

"Under s.177, it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic or other violence against him or her, or against a person who normally resides with him or her as a member of his or her family, or any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him or her. Violence includes threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out. Inquiries into cases where violence is alleged will need careful handling. It is essential that inquiries do not provoke further violence. It is not advisable for the housing authority to approach the alleged perpetrator, since this could generate further violence, and may delay the assessment. Housing authorities may, however, wish to seek information from friends and relatives of the applicant, social services and the police, as appropriate. In some cases, corroborative evidence of actual or threatened violence may not be available, for example, because there were no adult witnesses and/or the applicant was too frightened or ashamed to report incidents to family, friends or the police. In many cases involving violence, the applicant may be in considerable distress and an officer trained in dealing with the particular circumstances should conduct the interview. Applicants should be given the option of being interviewed by an officer of the same sex if they so wish."

What evidence do you have that this was not followed?

PasturesNew

But, if there are no houses ... where would the homeless be put? As it's peak season in Cornwall now, full of holidaymakers (so B&Bs want proper paying customers) -and- full of backpackers and students working for the summer .... there just isn't actually anywhere to put people.

Even McDonalds, the other year, couldn't get staff as nobody could find anywhere to live - and they had to buy tents so their staff could camp at the nearest campsite for 2 months.

There is nowhere. Lots of empty places, that are 2nd homes, or holiday lets that nobody's booked this week ... but no homes. Well, there are a few on RM, but what if they won't take the OP... there are still .... no homes.

PasturesNew

There are 2,000 households on the kerrier list, in an area covering a corridor of maybe 10 miles x 15 miles, where there are 43,000 households resident. 2,000 doesn't sound a lot, but in an area with 43,000 households, it's significant. AND, if you go outside of that corridor, the relative waiting lists are double the size. And these figures exclude transfers - transfers would include people who are already over-crowded.

Source: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/144458.xls

Wee_Willy_Harris

squinty wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can come to this conclsion from the limited information posted.

The code of guidance actually says:

"Under s.177, it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic or other violence against him or her, or against a person who normally resides with him or her as a member of his or her family, or any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him or her. Violence includes threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out. Inquiries into cases where violence is alleged will need careful handling. It is essential that inquiries do not provoke further violence. It is not advisable for the housing authority to approach the alleged perpetrator, since this could generate further violence, and may delay the assessment. Housing authorities may, however, wish to seek information from friends and relatives of the applicant, social services and the police, as appropriate. In some cases, corroborative evidence of actual or threatened violence may not be available, for example, because there were no adult witnesses and/or the applicant was too frightened or ashamed to report incidents to family, friends or the police. In many cases involving violence, the applicant may be in considerable distress and an officer trained in dealing with the particular circumstances should conduct the interview. Applicants should be given the option of being interviewed by an officer of the same sex if they so wish."

What evidence do you have that this was not followed?

The negative decision.

Wee_Willy_Harris

PasturesNew wrote: »

But, if there are no houses ... where would the homeless be put? As it's peak season in Cornwall now, full of holidaymakers (so B&Bs want proper paying customers) -and- full of backpackers and students working for the summer .... there just isn't actually anywhere to put people.

Even McDonalds, the other year, couldn't get staff as nobody could find anywhere to live - and they had to buy tents so their staff could camp at the nearest campsite for 2 months.

There is nowhere. Lots of empty places, that are 2nd homes, or holiday lets that nobody's booked this week ... but no homes. Well, there are a few on RM, but what if they won't take the OP... there are still .... no homes.

The homeless legislation is quite clear about the duties owed. The LA cannot discharge those duties on the basis that there are no homes available. Their homeless strategy should make provision for such an eventuality.

Wee_Willy_Harris

PasturesNew wrote: »

There are 2,000 households on the kerrier list, in an area covering a corridor of maybe 10 miles x 15 miles, where there are 43,000 households resident. 2,000 doesn't sound a lot, but in an area with 43,000 households, it's significant. AND, if you go outside of that corridor, the relative waiting lists are double the size. And these figures exclude transfers - transfers would include people who are already over-crowded.

Source: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/144458.xls

And a quick look at the recent lets of social housing in Cornwall will tell you that there is social housing available. Either way, the homeless legislation takes no account of availability. That would end up being a postcode lottery for homelessness. The test for homelessness should be the same in Cornwall as anywhere else.

squinty

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The negative decision.

So - following your logic.

Every case (assuming they clear the hurdles of eligabilty and vulnerability) who makes a unsubstantiated claim of threat of violence from a former partner, even when the alleged threat was made through a third party, must be accepted as homeless and by not accepting the applicant the LA are breaking the law and are not following the Code of Guidance.

Is this what you really think?

Tiddlywinks

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I've read the OP, and previous posts on a previous thread. Both make mention of the issues with the ex and both make mention of the support available from another family member.

"Issues" or disagreements with an ex do not equal domestic violence - you are making assumptions and padding it out to meet with your interpretation.

The poster mentioned that the housesitter had been assualted but decided not to press charges - well if it had been that "serious" then the police would have progressed it without needing the agreement of the victim.

Also, the poster said her family's lives have been threatened - well each area has a police/multi agency team to deal with domestic violence where officers are fully trained to deal with events such as this. The poster has CHOSEN not to report it. The police would have been able to do a risk assessment if they had been notified.

So, reality check - no police action to evidence this - just the word of a poster on an internet forum.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The LA in Cornwall have, rather typically, not adhered to the legislation OR the code of guidance with regard to domestic violence.

Again, a sweeping statement based on the word of the poster and your own prejudices and assumptions.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Sadly, most LAs will insist that evidence is provided by the applicant to PROVE the threat of DV. This shouldn't be an absolute requirement. Whilst previous violence, police reports, injunctions etc WILL assist in a positive decision, none are necessary and, taking the OP at face value (we have no reason to do anything else), a positive decision should have been made based on the information provided.

No, sorry, but completely disagree - there has to be some burden of proof on the person requesting help otherwise anyone could wave the DV flag to jump the queue.

You must have either led a very sheltered life of be very naive - people are not always honest, they may tell you what you want to hear in order to further their own cause. Someone falsely using the threat of DV for their own gain only serves to harm the cases brought by all of the genuine victims.

I am not saying that the poster isn't genuine but I am saying that you actually don't know.

She has made no police reports, previously mentioned she fancied a move to Cornwall, has taken an unreasonably long time to find somewhere suitable and generally does not appear to recognise that she has played some part in this whole affair. Those are the only "facts" coming from the information available on this forum.

Gawd, I feel better now I have got this off my chest!

Wee_Willy_Harris

squinty wrote: »

So - following your logic.

Every case (assuming they clear the hurdles of eligabilty and vulnerability) who makes a unsubstantiated claim of threat of violence from a former partner, even when the alleged threat was made through a third party, must be accepted as homeless and by not accepting the applicant the LA are breaking the law and are not following the Code of Guidance.

Is this what you really think?

That's the truth. You may not like, but it is. The legislation and code of guidance are very clear on that.

Dontknowanymore

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

That's the truth. You may not like, but it is. The legislation and code of guidance are very clear on that.

Unfortunately that does not always happen.