kerrier council are throwing my family on the streets

hermum

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

As I've said in other posts, the homeless route into re-housing isn't all roses and the LA are entitled to bid on her behalf for any suitable propertis available in their area, so she could be offered a property anywhere in Cornwall.

If they do & they are top for it, turning it down would mean that the LA could discharge their duty, IF they had accepted a duty to them.

Mum_of_3_3

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Oh. So you can't be homeless with a flashgun?

Don't be so ridiculous of course you can, the only thing you don't own if you are homeless is a property.

However, I would've thought that anyone with any sense would sell expensive items like a camera so that they can get a roof over their children's head.

Oh well, at least she'll have loads of lovely pictures of them sleeping on the back seat of her car, shame she hasn't got any walls to display them on!

M_o_3

Jowo_2

Obviously the OP has not divulged the degree and extent of domestic abuse she has encountered but do remember that the controlling behaviour of the partner erodes confidence and therefore decision making skills.

Many partners of domestic abuse victims, do their best to economically disadvantage them, to control their finances (financial violence), to destroy their relationships with friends and family, to keep them socially isolated and dependent. Only the OP, and not the posters here, can truly understand what she has gone through.

I recall a thread from someone on the benefits board whose ex had a huge nest egg but would not pay towards the upkeep of his child, meaning the lady could no longer afford the rent and was being evicted. He falsely reported her for benefit fraud, tax fraud, council tax fraud and so forth. He landed her with huge debts, damaged her car and so forth.

One of my friends works for a domestic abuse organiation. To give you an idea how devious and manipulative some people are, it is not uncommon for someone to present themselves as a victim of domestic violence and for the screening process to later throw up the fact that it is in fact, their partner who is the actual victim. In other words, the perpetrator of the violence is so bent on harassment and so cunning, that they want to distance themselves from their criminal acts and continue to terrorise their partner, that they actually pretend to be the victim. Then the screening process throws up the fact that it is their partners that have been hospitalised with violence related injuries, thrown out of the house or the alleged 'victim' to have criminal convictions or restraining orders against them.

hermum

She wasn't living with the perpertrator & he was the oldest childs Father, so there was another child & partner between him & this partner & child, yes her self-esteem could have been so eroded that she's hopped from one relationship to another, procreating as she goes.
However I still claim that any woman considering fleeing for her & her family's safety does not post about it on an open forum, 8 months before going. Using what appears to be their name, & uploads pictures of their children on said forum & then tells all sundry where in the country they fled for their lives.
I have also worked with victims of DV, they would arrive often in the middle of the night with the clothes they stood up in & a bag of stuff for their kids, or if they were lucky enough to have a car, what they could pile in.
They wouldn't use the bank account, mobile phone or anything else that meant they could be traced.
They sure as anything wouldn't be discussing on an open forum anything that could identify them & ultimately lead to them being found.
The posts from this person just do not add up to being someone who has fled for their safety.
It seems to me that they are acting a victim.
If this is the case it really doesn't help the true victims of dv.

Wee_Willy_Harris

hermum wrote: »

If they do & they are top for it, turning it down would mean that the LA could discharge their duty, IF they had accepted a duty to them.

Indeed. Although there is an appeal route available if they feel the offer is unsuitable. However, if that fails, then there is no longer a duty to provide ANY accommodation at all.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous of course you can, the only thing you don't own if you are homeless is a property.

However, I would've thought that anyone with any sense would sell expensive items like a camera so that they can get a roof over their children's head.

Oh well, at least she'll have loads of lovely pictures of them sleeping on the back seat of her car, shame she hasn't got any walls to display them on!

M_o_3

On the basis of the information we have from the OP, the LA should re-house her so she will have no problem finding a wall to hang her pictures from.

hermum

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Indeed. Although there is an appeal route available if they feel the offer is unsuitable. However, if that fails, then there is no longer a duty to provide ANY accommodation at all.

Any accommodation is better & more suitable than a car, so I can't see that they would win an appeal on suitability.
A lot of clients in Cornwall will turn down a property if it's not on a bus route, close to shops etc, luckily the OP has kept her car so at least that won't be a problem for her.

Wee_Willy_Harris

hermum wrote: »

She wasn't living with the perpertrator & he was the oldest childs Father, so there was another child & partner between him & this partner & child, yes her self-esteem could have been so eroded that she's hopped from one relationship to another, procreating as she goes.
However I still claim that any woman considering fleeing for her & her family's safety does not post about it on an open forum, 8 months before going. Using what appears to be their name, & uploads pictures of their children on said forum & then tells all sundry where in the country they fled for their lives.
I have also worked with victims of DV, they would arrive often in the middle of the night with the clothes they stood up in & a bag of stuff for their kids, or if they were lucky enough to have a car, what they could pile in.
They wouldn't use the bank account, mobile phone or anything else that meant they could be traced.
They sure as anything wouldn't be discussing on an open forum anything that could identify them & ultimately lead to them being found.
The posts from this person just do not add up to being someone who has fled for their safety.
It seems to me that they are acting a victim.
If this is the case it really doesn't help the true victims of dv.

There are as many ways of reacting to DV as there are incidents of it. Just because the OPs reactions don't fit into your pre-conceived ideas of what she should, or shouldn't, have done doesn't mean that her version of events is any less valid or, indeed, can be dismissed. Many perpitrators of DV do so from the comfort of their own "patch", ewhere they have the back up of their ill informed family/friends to justify their actions or protect them from retribution. Often, when legal action is taken, those friends/family members will view the perpitrator as the victim of a partner (as we have seen with some of the comments on here regarding the Raoul Moat case). But, once geographically removed from those networks, the victim will be safe from further action as the perp will not want to carry out any threats away from the comfort and support offered by his home patch.

DV is a very complex issue. Broad brush judgements generally do more harm than good. The OP is an individual and with DV, as with so many things in life, one size rarely fits all. Her actions may not match what you think yours would be, but you are not in her position and, as such, your judgements are worthless.

Wee_Willy_Harris

hermum wrote: »

Any accommodation is better & more suitable than a car, so I can't see that they would win an appeal on suitability.
A lot of clients in Cornwall will turn down a property if it's not on a bus route, close to shops etc, luckily the OP has kept her car so at least that won't be a problem for her.

I agree. And appeals against offers are rarely successful, particularly from out of area applicants. But things like transport links, support services, local amenities can be a relevant factor. Clearly, having access to a vehicle will mitigate many of these issues in the OPs case.

The homeless route is a brutal route into re-housing and not something I would recommend to anyone unless as a measure of last resort. LA's are under pressure to reduce the use of temp accommodation and discharge their duty to house as quickly as possible. This means that they will use any priority issued as a means of re-housing quickly, usually by bidding on low demand properties in low demand areas where the app is likely to finish at the top of the list. The element of choice that CBL allocations bring is rarely at the disposal of those with a duty to house, and there is an argument that this is the way it should be. You can have the house you want, OR you can have a house NOW. Rarely are those two factors compatable.

Jowo_2

hermum wrote: »

She wasn't living with the perpertrator...It seems to me that they are acting a victim.

She wasn't with the perpetrator...but this isn't particularly relevant, firstly because the chances are that the reason she wasn't living with him was because he was abusive.

Secondly, many women that leave abusive relationships find that the geographical distance doesn't actually mean the end of the abuse (only the physical abuse if that was a factor).

The psychological, financial and emotional abuse can continue.