Britain's Hidden Housing Crisis

seven-day-weekend

Errata wrote: »

Surely he wasn't habitually resident if he'd been living in America for a number of years?

If he could show that he has come back to the UK to stay for the foreseeable future, he will be classed as habitually resident. It's the intention to stay, not necessarily the length of time one has stayed, that is the decider.

gallygirl

What no-one has mentioned is that if/when the repossessed houses are sold that isn't the end of it. If there is a shortfall they will still be pursued for arrears.

The family with 2 kids couldn't afford the deposit for a rental place which is why they were still with relatives. Em....... sell the car?

I hope Kevin is ok though. I hope if he hasn't found work he is volunteering somewhere, he seemed like a survivor and I loved his stoical attitude :T.

[Deleted User]

I watched this programme on Iplayer last night. yes, it was all about bad circumstances and bad choices.., and a certain inability to cope/deal with 'the system'.., whether that be a bank or housing department.

The family with 6 children, like a lot of you, I felt terribly sorry for the children.

I've been homeless and was told that my older son (who has ASD) would have to go to any school with room, it would probably be a school where he'd have had problems (very few with English as their first language) fitting in etc. I also had a five year old, just coming up to reception and quite vulnerable to the effects of lots of changes. Now, once I'd got a council house in the area I wanted to move to (near my family).., they'd yet again have had to go to a temporary school place, while a place came up in more suitable school (for my older son, he needed to go to a mainstream school that could deal with ASD)/nearer to where I lived. Then finally they might move to a permanent school.

So three school changes due to me being homeless. I thought about it, went back to my original housing where we were at risk, and after three months left there too because of the problems. It was a case of there not being a good decision to make. That way my children changed school twice instead of three times, and the schools weren't too bad. If I'd stayed in the hostel, it would have been worse schooling wise.

The family with six children wouldn't have known how long they would be staying in the hostel. It would only have been while their homelessness case was being investigated. This means if they'd have had their children in a school, they would have known in all likelihood it would have been a temporary placement. One can argue over which is more distressing, having school but changing two or three times in a year, or not having school at all.

Once they were found voluntarily homeless.., they lost most of their options. I was offered a deposit loan., but only while my case was investigated. If I'd not grabbed it, and it had been decided I was voluntarily homeless, I'd have lost even that. So now I am stuck in poor private housing like a lot of people. And grateful to have a roof over our heads.

This family definitely seemed a bit of a nightmare.., I saw the takeaway coffee cups etc too lol. Yes, I would imagine they didn't fill in housing forms. It could be that forms were forbidding (weren't the most educated parents in the world) and they didn't seek help. That's how people get in these situations. Its a bad choice. And unfortunately, the children are paying for it.The mother certainly seemed ultimately defensive when she didn't like something, and I suspect that is the root cause of all their problems. Its difficult to know how a family like that can be helped. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be.., for the children's sake if nothing else.

Kevin also seemed a bit 'not based in reality'. He didn't seem to have a clue as to where to go for help although he did find some eventually. Well done to him for putting up with the hostel until they helped him get somewhere more permanent. Life won't be easy.., but he's taken the first step to recovering a normal life.

The lady with cancer.., again, something must have gone terribly wrong for her to be made homeless. We can only guess what (besides the cancer). I am sure the banks did try to discuss a payment plan with her early on, but due initially to her part time work (if this is what she did) and then inability to work due to her cancer.., I guess the bank decided she'd not be able to pay the arrears back. But its all guesswork, I feel there was more probably in her background than the programme told us.

The 'rich' family. Oh dear, yep, definitely a resistance to reducing their lifestyle to fit their income. I am absolutely certain they could have done something about their housing situation (like reducing Xmas presents and paid mortgage with car money, selling stuff etc). As far as getting into private rental.., with no job and a bad credit rating (the programme did mention this) no letting agency would let them in the door (I had to find a private landlord and it was very very difficult, they're a rare breed that will take on tenants on benefits.., and usually only landlords with substandard housing at that). Personally, this family annoyed me more than anything. They should have had the ability to prevent being made homeless.

BigAunty

studio_two wrote: »

That's what they said, but the husband and wife drove off in separate cars at the end of the show.

The way I interpreted that clip is that a neighbours car in an adjacent drive way motored away at a similar time to their departure. I thought that they'd sold their other motor to pay for Xmas so only had one vehicle left, albeit a hugely expensive one.

BigAunty

Mrs_Z wrote: »

...

The family with 6 kids... well, why have that many if you can't afford to look after them.

Was it a family of 6 (2 parents, 4 children)? I couldn't work it out. In some of the shots there were 6 kids but I wondered if a couple were friends of the children.

BigAunty

Better_Days wrote: »

What shocked me most was the 4 children who weren't in school.

...

I was very shocked by that too and wonder if the local authority should or maybe was, pursuing the parents for truancy. I thought it was a criminal offence not to have children in school unless there was consent to educate them at home.

I know it's disruptive for children to have temporary schools and change each time they move but since the parents kept focussing on the cramped conditions and how upset the children are, you would have thought they'd welcome the peace and space that would result from their attendance at school and the distraction from their living conditions.

I think it was very telling that one family with kids ensured that their children were not present for the actual eviction by bailiffs because it would be too distressing for them. This compared to the other parents who actually left 2 of their children, including the youngest, alone in the property at the time the bailiffs were due and seemed stunned when it proceeded.

I know that they went to the council offices to sort out accommodation (seems a bit last minute anyway) but why couldn't one of the parents gone on their own to handle this.

BigAunty

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

6 months for a full homeless decision, including appeals? Sounds about right to me. Clearly they were looking to make the right decision so, yes, well done LB Croydon. And you can hardly blame LB Croydon for the applicants fantasy expectations regarding that outcome..

I don't know why it took such a very long time to real this decision, even with appeals, although I expect that a lot of local councils are under resourced for the increasing level of homeless applicants they are dealing with.

However, I also wonder how much this may have been due to the parents notoriously slack attitude to paperwork, finances and planning - they seemed very poor at engaging with their issues.

For example, not getting on top of their housing benefit claims, rent arrears or initial possession process for the first council property they were evicted from, followed by allowing their children to truant for months, etc.

Better_Days

deannatrois wrote: »

The family with six children wouldn't have known how long they would be staying in the hostel. It would only have been while their homelessness case was being investigated. This means if they'd have had their children in a school, they would have known in all likelihood it would have been a temporary placement. One can argue over which is more distressing, having school but changing two or three times in a year, or not having school at all.

I appreciate your point and your well thought through efforts to minimise disruption for your children. I do hope that your children are now settled and doing well. However in the case of the family in the programme I think that the Mother just couldn't be bothered to sort out schooling for her children. Plus I suspect that having the children at home is a good excuse for her to avoid looking for work. The family must have had numerous contacts with the council, why weren't the parents challenged about the children's schooling? These children have been badly let down, both by their parents bad decisions and by the local authorities (although I accept that it is likely that this is a very difficult family to help given the attitude of the Mother)

BitterAndTwisted

david29dpo wrote: »

This programme has left me wondering why it was aired at all.
It told us nothing we don't already know.
I used to think the BBC was unbiased, not any more.

I didn't see the beginning of the programme unfortunately but I believe that I could read the sub-text quite clearly. Which was "bury your head in the sand and see what the outcome could be for you and people like you". I suspect it will have been very instructive indeed for those who believe that, come what may, regardless of their own actions, or lack of them, their Local Authority will be able to help rehouse them.

Both the evicted family with children and the lady with cancer being repo'd were partly victims of their own inaction and their totally unrealistic expectations. The lady in Dagenham admitted on camera to not having opened and read what correspondence was coming to her home until it was all too late. It seemed to me that both of these cases really believed that they could and would be rehoused in what they assumed would be suitable accommodation, and that was the reason for them not attempting to take control of their own housing situations before the bailiffs were at the door, or sooner.

Under the circumstances I thought the Dagenham lady was utterly unrealistic about her reaction to what she was offered and had turned down. She'll be sleeping on that blow-up bed at her friend's place for a very long time now.

I suspect their disappointment may have proven to be a rather salutary lesson for many, many viewers. Who I hope to God will never find themselves in a similar situation, and if they do they completely understand what few options there could be open to them.

C_Mababejive

There are some harsh judgements being made. This could happen to almost any one of us. All it takes is a divorce,relationship failure,sudden illness,redundancy and if you cant recover quickly enough,you can easily slip below the waves. Most people dont have sufficient savings to sustain their lifestyle for a year or so.

Banks have their nice cosy public profile where they pretend how caring or helpful they are but just wait until your mortage payments slip for a few months and see how persistent they become when they smell blood. I know someone whos relationship failed and whos mortage slipped and for the sake of a relatively small amount of money,they pursued relentlessly and finally repossessed and sold the house in an auction for a pittance..probably about 50% of its potential worth.

Kevins case aptly illustrates and even was stated how little worth single males have in society. If they fall by the wayside,the system is quite happy for them to freeze and die in the gutter.

Kevin only survived becuase of his intelligence and endearing nature.