kerrier council are throwing my family on the streets

Wee_Willy_Harris

Dontknowanymore wrote: »

Unfortunately that does not always happen.

Sadly, no. LA's rely on applicants ignorance to refuse them their legitimate rights. Even sadder is the number of posters on here, a site where people come for advice, support and assistance, prepared to defend that position.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

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

Not at all. I'm just taking the OP at face value...

vfallows83 wrote: »

my eldest sons father is causing trouble for us here in london and making life very stressfull.
my partner has family who live in cornwall.
we would like to move to cornwall as we need a fresh start and we would also have support, which we dont have here as we are totally isolated.

vfallows83 wrote: »

we came to cornwall on holiday in oct last year and while we were here my ex partner threatned my familys lives if we returned to surrey. he also attacked my friend who was looking after my house while i was in holiday, the police were called and they visited my friend to see what had happened, but my friend didn't want to take it any further because he was to scared.
so for my safety and my childrens i decided to stay in cornwall,

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

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.

How can you know that she wasn't too scared to name the assailant? For someone who doesn't like making assumptions, you seem to have it down to a fine art.

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

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

Reality check. That's all the homeless legislation requires.

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

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

I'm taking the OP at face value and applying that to the legislation. No prejudice. No assumption.

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

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.

Not when fleeing violence. It's in the legislation and the COG.

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

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.

I know people aren't always honest, but without the opportunity to properly interrogate the OP, we have to take what's written at face value. At the end of the day, if you make the wrong decision and house someone you shouldn't, it's a shame. Refuse to house someone you should, and it could be murder. Are you sure that's a decision you want to make based on what the OP has said?

PasturesNew

Did the OP ever come back to the thread ...?

Last Activity: 14-07-2010 11:29 PM

squinty

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.

Where in the code of guidance does it say this?

Mum_of_3_3

PasturesNew wrote: »

Did the OP ever come back to the thread ...?

Funnily enough she didn't. Maybe the fact that no-one said "Aaah! Oh dear, how terrible" has something to do with it.

Or maybe she's actually decided to live in a car with her children rather than live n 'unsuitable' accommodation

M_o_3

Mum_of_3_3

Wee Willy Harris,

The council seems to have listened to her and gave her the option of private rental with the council footing the deposit, but although there seems to be quite a few houses in her catchment, she decided none of them were suitable.

How Kerrier are meant to be able to pluck an empty council house out of thin air for her and her family (just because she doesn't like the private lets available) I do not know. I suspect that the council also feel they have been fair by making the offer of a deposit.

M_o_3

squinty

On 14th July one of your first posts in this thread said

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

From what I gather, you have been made intentionally homeless having lost your accommodation in Surrey as a result of your own acts or omissions. Specifically, from your OP, you did nothing to preserve your tenancy in Surrey (prosecute your ex, injunctions, get a DV marker on property, Police reports etc). There is also no indication that can be varified to the LA in Cornwall that you would be at risk were you to return (Police reports, support from Womens Aid or other DV organsations, Social Services support, GP support etc). This is what has lead them to the negative decision. Once the negative decision is made, the provision of any temp accommodation provided extends for a "reasonable" time to allow you to find alternative accommodation. In most cases, this will be less than 28 days. Even if you appeal this decision, they have no DUTY to provide you with further temp unless the initial decision is overturned as a result of your appeal. There will be a further route of appeal within the LA, usually a committee of councillors. After that, there are still avenues of appeal open to you (High Court etc) but this is a very time consuming process and you need to secure resolution ASAP.

Unless (unlikely) the B+B is specifically run by the Council, they will not have told them to "put you out", but will have told then that their funding has stopped. The B+B can still accommodate you on a self funding basis, ie you claim LHA and make up any shortfall. Obviously, this is dependant on the B+B accepting such an arrangement. Many won't as there is no guarantee of payment.

Right now, your best course of action is to GO TO the Council and sort out the deposit guarantee. If they aren't returning calls, then the telephone is clearly a waste of time, so a personal visit may be more fruitful. They will also be able to offer other advice/options regarding housing which may be helpful. You also need to be spending every available minute looking for suitable accommodation. However, at the end of the day, if there's non available in the area, there's none available and nothing you do will change that, so you may need to be more realistic about where you are looking for accommodation. Maybe widening your search would be more productive.

For Social Housing, even though you are Intentionally Homeless, the LA has to have due regard and offer suitable priority to those who are homeless. Having seen the Cornwall Homechoice guide, you should be allocated to Band C, which will give you priority over those with lesser needs than yourself. Homechoice is still quite new in Cornwall, so I would suggest you familiarise yourself with this system before everybody else does. Historically, new CBL allocation systems favour pro-active applicands early, so don't waste another moment on this front. Looking at their recent lets, a number of 2 and 3 bed houses have been let in the last couple of months to band C applicants who have been on the list for under 6 months (Example: Ref:714. Advertised end of May 2010. 2 bed house. Clifden Close, Mullion. Let to applicand band C since April 2010). Again, you need to be sensible with your areas of choice. Concentrating on high demand/low turnover areas may not be the wisest course of action.

To be blunt, you have been in Cornwall since last September and obviously had no intention of returning to Surrey. That means you've had 10 months to sort something out. I think the time has come for you to pull your finger out and get on with it.

Yet by today your advice has changed to

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. 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.

I would not be surprised if, with the support of an agency such as Shelter, the initial decision is overturned on review. However, the means by which the discharge of any homeless duty is achieved by the LA have already been outlined, so it may not be the outcome the OP wants anyway.

(the bold has been added)

There has been no addtional information provided by the OP in the interim.

What has happened in the interim to cause this change?

Wee_Willy_Harris

squinty wrote: »

Where in the code of guidance does it say this?

6.15. The obligation to make inquiries, and satisfy itself whether a duty is owed, rests with the housing authority and it is not for applicants to “prove their case”. Applicants should always be given the opportunity to explain their circumstances fully, particularly on matters that could lead to a decision against their interests, for example, a decision that an applicant is intentionally homeless.

6.17. 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, orroborative 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.


8.19. Section 177(1) provides that it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic violence or other violence against:
i) the applicant;
ii) a person who normally resides as a member of the applicant’s family; or
iii) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant.
Section 177(1A) provides that violence means violence from another person or threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out. Domestic violence is violence from a person who is associated with the victim and also includes threats of violence which are likely to be carried out. Domestic violence is not confined to instances within the home but extends to violence outside the home.

8.22. An assessment of the likelihood of a threat of violence being carried out should not be based on whether there has been actual violence in the past. An assessment must be based on the facts of the case and devoid of any value judgements about what an applicant should or should not do, or should or should not have done, to mitigate the risk of any violence (e.g. seek police help or apply for an injunction against the perpetrator). Inquiries into cases where violence is alleged will need careful handling.

8.23. In cases involving violence, housing authorities may wish to inform applicants of the option of seeking an injunction, but should make clear that there is no obligation on the applicant to do so. Where applicants wish to pursue this option, it is advisable that they obtain independent advice as an injunction may be ill-advised in some circumstances. Housing authorities should recognise that injunctions ordering a person not to molest, or enter the home of, an applicant may not be effective in deterring perpetrators from carrying out further violence or incursions, and applicants may not
have confidence in their effectiveness. Consequently, applicants should not be expected to return home on the strength of an injunction. To ensure applicants who
have experienced actual or threatened violence get the support they need, authorities should inform them of appropriate organisations in the area such as agencies offering counselling and support as well as specialist advice.

8.24. When dealing with cases involving violence, or threat of violence, from outside the home, housing authorities should consider the option of improving the security of the applicant’s home to enable him or her to continue to live there safely, where that is an
option that the applicant wishes to pursue. In some cases, immediate action to improve security within the victim’s home may prevent homelessness. A fast response combined with support from the housing authority, police and the voluntary sector may provide a victim with the confidence to remain in their home. When dealing with domestic violence within the home, where the authority is the landlord, housingauthorities should consider the scope for evicting the perpetrator and allowing the victim to remain in their home. However, where there would be a probability of violence if the applicant continued to occupy his or her present ccommodation,
the housing authority must treat the applicant as homeless and should not expect him or her to remain in, or return to, the accommodation. In all cases involving violence the safety of the applicant and his or her household should be the primary consideration at all stages of decision making as to whether or not the applicant remains in their own home.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

Wee Willy Harris,

The council seems to have listened to her and gave her the option of private rental with the council footing the deposit, but although there seems to be quite a few houses in her catchment, she decided none of them were suitable.

How Kerrier are meant to be able to pluck an empty council house out of thin air for her and her family (just because she doesn't like the private lets available) I do not know. I suspect that the council also feel they have been fair by making the offer of a deposit.

M_o_3

As I have already posted, that is one option open to her. But the question of a homeless accept is not dependant on the availability of social housing. You either are homeless, in accordance with Part 7 on the 1996 housing act, or you are not.

Lance

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The negative decision.

So you have fully investigated this matter and seen council records have you? You have consulted friends / relations of topic starter have you? You were present at the council / social services interviews were you? You know the topic starter personally or at least interviewed her have you? You suggest the council workers are uncaring and allege they have breached the law on what 'evidence' exactly?

You should be a judge Wee Willy....... "No need for a trial, I have read what the victim has to say on MSE and the accused is obviously guilty!" You'd save us a fortune on lawyers fees. Prisons a bit full of innocent men though!