Please help - sick with worry

Jowo_2

Local councils are notorious for failing to meet their statutory obligations to assist the homeless for various reasons (poor training of their staff, lack of resources to cope with great demand for limited supply, etc). They have the reputation for 'gate keeping' which is where they try their best to push back on people applying for housing with various excuses and strategies.

Shelter is the best place for advice on your actual rights and the councils obligations which may actually differ from the service that you are currently experiencing.

The references to asylum seekers and so forth is simply irrelevant and detracting from the whole issue.

So what if the council has empty properties at the moment? All social housing landlords experience churn and will have voids before they manage to allocate them. It doesn't mean that a person can simply point to one and say 'I have the right to live in it because I have housing need and it's empty. Why don't they give me a key, I deserve it more than others on the list (despite the fact that there may be a huge number in greater need than me)'.

Mupette

I am awfully sorry that my MS has irked some.

I can't often find the right words to say, obviously this is evident in my last post.

• Certain people who are subject to Immigration Control under the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act
• Certain people from abroad who are not subject to immigration control but who are not habitually resident in the UK, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland

These are not allowed, i was trying to say those that don't have immigration control...



maybe some would like to to have a signature stating my medical issues.. especially as they already knew

Oldernotwiser

Who's been irked by your MS; I haven't seen it mentioned.

sueturnersmith

Spam reported

parsons

Sixer wrote: »

So what you are saying is that these houses are already let and the Home Office is paying the LA rent for them? So, technically, they are occupied? In the same way a holiday/second home is technically occupied, even though the owners are only there for two weeks a year?

Yes precisely. There have been rumblings over this for many years. The Home Office hold blocks of property from the LA in anticipation of housing refugees that have been given leave to remain (NOT asylum seekers anymore) in the UK after successfully claiming asylum.

The LA have no control over when these properties are occupied, they have complied with what is required of them to block let a number of homes. So in effect they are not empty in the sense of being not let, just empty because the Home Office haven't yet allocated people to them.

That is why you will find that in some areas, there are blocks of transient immigrants who appear to take over an area within an estate. In some cases, whole small estates are let out in this way.

It is also not unusual to find that developers are now required to build a minimum number of social housing units in consideration of building other properties. These are possibly then let by a housing association en block to a particular type of immigrant through the Home Office..

For example in parts of the SE you will find large enclaves of Iraqi's and Gurkas.

eskimo26

Unfortunately what you were told by the clerk about asylum seekers and/or those given definite leave to stay (they convenient mix it up) is something I hear people say they are told all the time in areas of huge demand.

Its an easy way for the council to deflect anger from themselves to an easy target why they blithely continue refusing to do anything for you.

The truth is there are certain groups that get priority and they are housed 1st (i may be wrong but i believe single mothers with young children, those granted asylum, people coming out of foster care are at the very top).

After the at risk groups are housed you'd be extremely lucky for anything to be left because the demand far far outstrips supply, which is something previous Governments have contributed too.

Either way I would have thought they have a duty of care to make sure your family aren't homeless, so push harder, don't listen to the nauseating red herring you were told. Get the local MP involved, housing charities, local community (you said everyone knows everyone).

They might have to move you away from that specific area to somewhere they have availability? (depends how small the area you want is).

Keep us posted anyway. This is a situation you have to fight tooth and claw because your not 'officially' prioritised by the system and availability is very cut throat.

Keep us posted and good luck.

dmg24

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why can't the asylum seekers go into temporary B&B instead of British citizens who have fallen on hard times?

Sorry, that's just not fair imho.

To the OP - I really do feel your only way, unfortunately, is to try to find a private let and claim LHA.

Anyone who is granted asylum in the UK will have been to hell and back in their own country. They are not here to play the system, they are here because the alternative is something we cannot even contemplate. Maybe we should give them a break, show them that not everyone wants to treat them like a second class citizen?

nomoreboomandbust

dmg24 wrote: »

Anyone who is granted asylum in the UK will have been to hell and back in their own country. They are not here to play the system, they are here because the alternative is something we cannot even contemplate. Maybe we should give them a break, show them that not everyone wants to treat them like a second class citizen?

So it's ok to treat the indigenous population like 2nd class citizens then, no wonder we are in such a mess, we have got our priorities wrong

Morglin

It's irrelevant what asylum seekers/remainers get.

If you and your family are going to be made homeless, then the council also have a duty to help you.

Contact your MP, contact Shelter/CAB for advice and insist on YOUR rights - forget what rights others may also have.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/getadvice.htm

These guys may also be of help:
http://www.law.suffolk.edu/academic/clinical/consumer.cfm

Lin

Oldernotwiser

nomoreboomandbust wrote: »

So it's ok to treat the indigenous population like 2nd class citizens then, no wonder we are in such a mess, we have got our priorities wrong

I hardly think that being given money to live in a decent house in a nice area is being treated as "second class citizens". People in the OP's situation are in a good position to help themselves as they know the area and the way the systems work.