Britain's Hidden Housing Crisis

Hump

BigAunty wrote: »

For example, if a tenant hasn't played any part in household finances and isn't aware that that partner hasn't paid, they may still qualify for assistance. A relative of mine was able to get social housing after successfully appealing an 'intentional homeless' decision on these grounds - truly, she did not know her husband had not been paying until the bailiffs turned up and she literally had to leave the house with her kids with just the clothes on their backs.

Acquiesence is a mountain to climb as it's a rare reverse burden of proof - i.e. it's for the client to prove they didn't know - the council being entitled to assume that both parties knew.

Apologies for my first post - the incredulity doesn't transfer to the typed word too well!

I still can't understand a case taking 6 months +, especially one where the council officer needs only to obtain information from his/ her own organisation. I'm also puzzled how the ex-tenant family managed to be placed in what looked all the world like a 'bed & breakfast' hotel for more than 6 weeks - following their eviction from the bed bug ridden hostel. Then not to have at least tempered expectations in a likely 'intentionally homeless' case is kind of unforgivable - even if it goes something like 'we'll look into it, but if we find you intentionally homeless ..... you won't get another council house'.

The program certainly appears to have stirred folks minds - I think I really liked Kevin's approach too!

Glen_Clark

dizzy_lizzie wrote: »

I agree. Especially when the little boy could be seen crying behind the gate when they were being evicted. They don't understand what's happening. They'd also not been in school it said. So no social life either for them it would seem. He said he was bored. So upsetting to see that.

Really pleased that Kevin has somewhere to stay now though.
x

Nobody likes to see kids homeless, that is why they always get housed, one way or another.
But what would you do with a family from hell, who don't pay rent when they could afford to, trash the place, and make neighbors lives a misery?

outofmoney

Running_Horse wrote: »

I believe people evicted for rent arrears never get another property. Why should they? If someone owed you money, would you keep supplying them with things? Rent should be the first thing you pay, not the last.

Councils may evict but when children are concerned they cannot just put them on the streets, so they have to rehouse. Of course they only need to put a roof over their heads which is why the family ended up in a hostel.

Family of mine were evicted from a 2 bed house, but because they had children were offered a 2 bed flat. Seems crazy but that is how it works.

This is why the family have been allowed to stay in the hostel until they can find private accommodation. With the father working I don't see why this would be too hard but keeping the tenancy may be another thing given the behaviour of some of the family.

Personally we have been at the point of about to become homeless (LL decided not to rent after just one year). The council said they would put us in a hostel and we would most likely be there for a couple of years. I have two autistic children and just knew they wouldn't handle it. We were very lucky that we found private rental but it is crippling us financially as we are struggling to find the top up money. Like many in our situation, we are having to go without heat and sometimes food to ensure the rent is paid.

We would love to be given social housing but at the end of the day we also don't expect to be given a house.

Better_Off_1983

@Worriedjim... nice to see you were as observant as me, she had a fag in an ashtray in the window and having cancer treatment.

The mother with an iphone and no fixed abode. What is worrying is the 10 year old saying they should be in a house instead of a flat.. no doubt she will just breed for the meal ticket in the future!

lighting_up_the_chalice

outofmoney wrote: »

Councils may evict but when children are concerned they cannot just put them on the streets, so they have to rehouse. Of course they only need to put a roof over their heads which is why the family ended up in a hostel.

Not so. They have a duty to provide temp while the initial decision is made and, if a negative decision is made, for a non-specified time afterwards that would be sufficient for them to secure alternative accommodation. This period varies between areas from 7 days to approx 28 days.

After this time, they have no further duty to provide ANY accommodation, even if the original decision is being appealed against.

Those evicted from council properties and subsequently determined to have made themselves "intentionally homeless" are rarely rehoused into council properties, regardless of how many children they may have.

I think the notion that the council will always house homeless families may well have contributed to this families homelessness.

[Deleted User]

I do wonder what happened to the children though. Where I live, there were quite regularly families being refused help by the council. Yet I was the only one to find a private rental.., they usually managed to bunk up with friends or relatives. I didn't have any here so reason why I grabbed the offer of a loan for rent/deposit when I was offered and asked and asked til I found a private landlord. To be honest, whether substandard or not, I'd have taken anything with anything resembling a roof and foor walls. Hence why substandard private rental housing exists. U have to take it. The alternative for some of us is literally the streets. I don't know if the children are taken into care in these circumstances. I know it was investigated in my case, and there was no where for my older son with aspergers to go in this country. He'd have been lucky to be found a place in another part of the country. I can make no comment on the state of the county. I'd get too annoyed lol. I suspect there are a few families for whom 'Cathy Comes Home' is a reality. I found a place only just in time after three months of looking. I had the homelessness person in the council telling me I had to be out of the temporary accommodation they'd provided on a daily basis. But at least they did let me have that time.

And yes its a struggle finding the rent top up I HAVE to make, even for this house. A council house would be half the price (and I don't believe they are subsidised anymore, this was true 20 years ago but not now).

There's all sorts of things that people don't realise go on. Like my HB can only go up once a year.., at present actual Housing allowance rates are £50 more than I get (and remember they are set to be the same as the lower 30% of supposed rent costs in your area), but because the case was assessed in January, the increase to HA that was decided last April, I won't see til this January. And it doesn't cover the rent. I live in Kent, I have a small non luxurious 3 bed terraced house, no mod cons, stuff doesn't work, etc etc. You really don't live the life of riley in this situation. Private rental housing is quite unstable. I am 'lucky' my LL insisted on a 2 year Housing Agreement in a way (much as I don't like the house, its stable).., if you sign a six month agreement u could be moving your children every six months. With schools being over subscribed in most area's ., this can cause problems most of the population don't even realise for the children.

pineapple

Is smoking a no no if you are having cancer treatment then? Or are we saying if you are being repossessed you shouldn't be spending money on cigs? What do we know about her habit? 5 a day, 10 a day, 50 a day?
I didn't see the whole programme and don't know the extent of the arrears before this lady got ill, whether there was any attempt at an interim arrangement or selling the property even.
All I am saying is we should be wary of making judgements. As for smoking, if you are addicted and going through a tough time, it can be even harder to break the habit.
I just think, there for the grace of God go I.

debrag

Just watched it iplayer.

I actually feel sorry for the dad of the family of 6 having to put up with that woman! The oldest girl might as well have a kid get her own place and be rid of them.
I'm sure they left the youngest in the flat to try and get sympathy.

If I was living on my own I would have had Kevin at mine till he had sorted himself out. Glad he now is off the streets.

FBaby

debrag wrote: »

Just watched it iplayer.

I actually feel sorry for the dad of the family of 6 having to put up with that woman!

I did think that too... He came across as very hard working and dedicated to his job, yet he was also left to sort everything out in between his long shift. All she could do was moan about how to keep her children occupied in two rooms. My thought was that since they were not going to school, she could have looked into home educating them and that would have kept them all busy for 6 hours...

All in all, I always find these programmes so depressing on behalf of the children. Here were 4 children, all overweight, receiving no education, having an unmotivated mother as a role model, emotionally unsettled... I wanted to take them with me and give them a chance of a future. I do hope they will see their dad as a role model (at least what we saw of it on the programme) and want to better themselves, but how can we expect them of imagining another life when their normality is what their parents give them? Why oh why oh why have so many children when all you can offer is that sort of life??? I really will never get this.

BigAunty

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

...

I think the notion that the council will always house homeless families may well have contributed to this families homelessness.

The parents with 4 kids certainly hankered after another council property despite being evicted for arrears and I think they had deluded themselves into thinking that because they were now squashed into a smaller more expensive rental property, that the council ought to fix their self inflicted housing problem.

What I couldn't understand is why when they were finally told (after 2 evictions in a row, who need to be told it's a pipe dream?) that they wouldn't be treated as a priority for housing, they did not qualify for the council operated deposit guarantee scheme that helps low income/in housing need households into privat accommodation.

I assume it's the wages of the bus-driver father that disqualified them from this.

This family seemed incapable of managing quite ordinary tasks like budgeting, making their kids behave, finding employment, getting their kids to school, paying their rent, sorting out their own accommodation. I can't really see them have the drive, skills or inclination to save 2 or 3k for the first month's rent and deposit,agency and moving fees,can you?

I suppose by the very end, the parents must finally have realised that they were on their own, only they could get themselves out of the hostels/B&Bs.