kerrier council are throwing my family on the streets

hermum

The OP was logged in today at 5.28pm

mystic_trev

hermum wrote: »

The OP was logged in today at 5.28pm

Where? Cornwall or Surrey?

hermum

The OP was logged in today at 5.28pm.
She appears to be using her own name, not hiding & on her profile page she has her email address.
In all the years that I worked with victims of dv who were fleeing, none of them would have left a trail, in such a way.
Incidentally on facebook she gives her current town, again not someone who is in hiding.

clutton_2

WWH says ""But, I'm afraid, the rules are the rules. Until they change them, they still apply, and if LA's won't comply, there is another rulebook which will make them. It's how we do things in this country.""

i think this is a very naive view.... implementation of housing policy has subtly changed over the years as more and more council houses were sold off, as there was a greater demand for homes from the repossessed, the immigrant community, and the increase in divorce (meaning higher demand accommodation)

Councils have seen that they could no longer offer a home to all and sundry and so they began interpreting the "rules" with much more severity than before..


All this business of councils refusing an application for a homelessness request on the grounds that the tenant is under Threat of eviction, but not actually been evicted and advising them that the tenant has to wait till bailiffs are called in.... this never used to happen....

They then began to interpret again with ... they wont offer property to someone who has been evicted for rent arrrears....

they then broadened it yet again to.. rent arrears in their own council area and ANY other areas

so WWH - "rules" have a habit of changing as politicians squirm, as resources dwindle, and as demandn increases...

these changes have taken place in my own areas of investment - i read regularly of different councils interpreting housing policy in entirely different ways.....

the world of housing is no where near as black and white as you would believe it to be...

Wee_Willy_Harris

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

<sighs>.....<deep breath>.......

Actually, thousands of psychologists / analysts would disagree about the profiling - indeed "victimology" is studied, measured and profiles agreed in order to inform govermental decision making - including DV teams. Expert witnesses regularly refer to expected "patterns of behaviour" in court.

As to my "objections" to your posts - yes, I object.... to your need to justify your position even when there is so little real fact/detail on which to go on.

If this is a subject that is really close to your heart then why not go and work with a charity to assist those that take steps to escape. I'm sure your help would be appreciated (but you must learn to remain detatched).

Also, workers in this field should always approach situations in an objective way - just because an individual presents as a "victim" does not make it fact - it's amazing what can happen in disputes over custody, maintenance, new partners, moving the kids out of the area etc that motivate false accusations. Friends and family may also assist in the fabrication - not in the majority of cases but it happens enough to remain a consideration.

<sigh> <equally deep breath>

The facts we have to go on are contained within the OP. That is the information I have relied on and taken at face value. No assumptions, no judgements, no suppositions. The facts, as stated, are the basis for any information I have given with regard to the application of the homeless legislation, provision of temp etc etc. Others have posted their subjective judgements regarding the OP's motive. I have chosen to remain objective and assume to be true only what the OP has said as no evidence exists to contradict it. The previous posts by the OP about comping have even been used as some twisted justification for her word to be doubted, despite the fact that her previous posts also mention the issues with her former partner.

As for your "victimology", perhaps you could advise just what the behaviour pattern is with victims of DV? Do they all return to the abuser? Run to their family? Take legal action against the abuser? Take steps to ensure their home is more physically secure? Move away from the threat? Or end up living 6 feet under in a small plot of land? Those who have any knowledge of the subject will tell you... "All of the above", and many more as well. I will say again, there is no "typical" reaction to DV. There are as many reactions as there are victims.

Wee_Willy_Harris

hermum wrote: »

The OP was logged in today at 5.28pm

Well, I hope she finds the information provided of some use.

Wee_Willy_Harris

hermum wrote: »

The OP was logged in today at 5.28pm.
She appears to be using her own name, not hiding & on her profile page she has her email address.
In all the years that I worked with victims of dv who were fleeing, none of them would have left a trail, in such a way.
Incidentally on facebook she gives her current town, again not someone who is in hiding.

She's never attested to "hiding", just "fleeing". They are mutually exclusive acts. I believe the threat was made that her life would be at risk if she returned to Surrey.

Wee_Willy_Harris

clutton wrote: »

WWH says ""But, I'm afraid, the rules are the rules. Until they change them, they still apply, and if LA's won't comply, there is another rulebook which will make them. It's how we do things in this country.""

i think this is a very naive view.... implementation of housing policy has subtly changed over the years as more and more council houses were sold off, as there was a greater demand for homes from the repossessed, the immigrant community, and the increase in divorce (meaning higher demand accommodation)

Councils have seen that they could no longer offer a home to all and sundry and so they began interpreting the "rules" with much more severity than before..


All this business of councils refusing an application for a homelessness request on the grounds that the tenant is under Threat of eviction, but not actually been evicted and advising them that the tenant has to wait till bailiffs are called in.... this never used to happen....

They then began to interpret again with ... they wont offer property to someone who has been evicted for rent arrrears....

they then broadened it yet again to.. rent arrears in their own council area and ANY other areas

so WWH - "rules" have a habit of changing as politicians squirm, as resources dwindle, and as demandn increases...

these changes have taken place in my own areas of investment - i read regularly of different councils interpreting housing policy in entirely different ways.....

the world of housing is no where near as black and white as you would believe it to be...

I agree that there have been many changes in the housing market in this country over recent years, which may explain why we have had housing acts introduced in 1985, 1988, 1996, 2002, 2004, 2008, as well as any number of amendments to specific areas of housing legislation and much case law. Such is the nature of legislation.

Sadly, I have to agree with the examples you have given. But they are not examples of the "rules" changing, rather they are examples of LA's flouting the laws, and many such decisions have been successfully challenged. Unfortunately, that is very dependant on an applicant knowing their rights and how to excersise them. Some LA's rely on the applicants ignorance to deny them there rights. But there are plenty of agencies such as Shelter, CAB etc available to rectify that imbalance.... and I would count sources of information like these boards among them.

The world of housing has very few grey areas, but a lot of sharp practice.

PasturesNew

It's peeing down in Cornwall right now ... OP's probably sitting in a steamed up car, on Penzance sea front, with a bag of chips.... as you do on your holidays.

mystic_trev

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's peeing down in Cornwall right now ... OP's probably sitting in a steamed up car, on Penzance sea front, with a bag of chips.... as you do on your holidays.

Thanks PN, of course it's raining, I'm coming down next week, so it'll be snowing by then! When I came down two years ago, there was an outing to Falmouth one evening. Trouble was an overhanging branch took something off the coach roof. Rain started pouring out through the air vents, and we had to put our umbrellas up IN the coach! :rotfl: