Urgent help needed regarding housing benefit and possible homelessness

BigAunty

Willing2Learn wrote: »

The s21 notice is not sufficient for Local Authority to consider someone as threatened with homelessness.
....

Yes it is.

In the past, councils were notorious for fobbing off people applying as homeless and only intervening when the legal process was much more advanced, such as when the S21 notice expired or when the possession notice was later gained in court. This was despite the councils being notified by the Ombudsman that they should not ignore an S21 if there was a reasonable chance that the landlord would get possession ( as long as the document is served correctly, the judge has a mandatory duty to find in the landlord's favour!). This process of delaying from providing assistance was known as 'gatekeeping'.

In November 12, the localism act passed in England has changed their statutory responsibilities and my understanding is that councils are now obligated to act sooner, though of course, councils have the reputation of doing as little as they can get away with.

"One potentially positive change is ... they will be considered as threatened with homelessness as soon as that notice is served. These are useful provisions. Currently, applicants in private accommodation are left in a difficult position as they are currently not considered as even threatened with homelessness until their landlord has obtained a warrant of eviction and they are actually due to be evicted within 21 days. This means that they may have to wait for their landlord to take possession proceedings and are likely to be ordered to pay their landlord’s legal costs of those proceedings. Further, those proceedings are stressful for both sides"

http://blog.anthonygold.co.uk/2012/05/homelessness-under-the-localism-act-2011/

BigAunty

pmlindyloo wrote: »

...

Because the OP is unwell at the moment I do feel he should be addressing this issue and making temporary housing arrangements until his illness is stabalised (spelling?)

The stress of a court hearing and the bailiffs evicting is not a pleasant course to take and I personally feel that making alternative arrangements would be far less stressful.

I disagree that he should be making attempts to find his own accommodation, unless he's really capable of doing so and really wants to do this. Otherwise, the accepted wisdom is for the tenant to stay put until the legal process for repossession is more advanced and the council have identified if they are obliged to help him and how they will help him.

If he has the resources and will to find a new place, then great. If he has to throw himself at the mercy of the council to sort this out, then he must stay put as otherwise he will not receive any assistance from them, he will be considered either to have made himself intentionally homeless if he leaves the property when he does not need to, or if he does find a place off his own bat, naturally he's no longer in housing need, so there's no requirement to assist any further.

Mrs_Arcanum

6091833 wrote: »

I have looked but not found anything yet and to be honest I don't really know the right places to look. A friend has just suggested looking on Gumtree so I'll give that a try.

Thanks.

There are housing associations out there specifically for people with MH/LD but usually need a referral from CMHT or suchlike. Worth having a look around. One option is http://www.advanceuk.org/ - They also do employment support for people with MH but this is localised. Another option is http://www.mind.org.uk/

Willing2Learn

BigAunty wrote: »

Yes it is.

In the past, councils were notorious for fobbing off people applying as homeless and only intervening when the legal process was much more advanced, such as when the S21 notice expired or when the possession notice was later gained in court. This was despite the councils being notified by the Ombudsman that they should not ignore an S21 if there was a reasonable chance that the landlord would get possession ( as long as the document is served correctly, the judge has a mandatory duty to find in the landlord's favour!). This process of delaying from providing assistance was known as 'gatekeeping'.

I agree. The Localism Act is quite clear on this.

Localism Act 2011 s149 amendments to previous legislation include:
(2)For the purpose of subsection (1), an applicant in respect of whom a valid notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (orders for possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) has been given is to be treated as homeless from the date on which that notice expires.
Source: legislation.gov.uk - Localism Act 2011

First, there would not be any duty until the s21 expires.
Second, this is still open to interpretation as to how this would be applied.
Third, If every Local Authority re-housed a vulnerable individual upon expiry of the s21 then every Local Authority would become insolvent overnight.

If a Housing Officer were to ask me to make a decision on such a case I would, as part of the initial enquiries, be asking them to contact the the landlord to confirm they are proceeding with the due legal process to enforce eviction. If the landlord was not then the application would be declined due to not being homeless.

It could be argued that this decision is unlawful and the applicant would be within their rights to appeal such a decision.

I did also state earlier:

Willing2Learn wrote: »

The Local Authority is not always the best place to seek advice as they do sometimes make incorrect decisions on matters of law.

IE Local Authorities do routinely make unlawful decisions . This is my experience and I have successfully overturned countless decisions when supporting and advocating for vulnerable service-users. Mostly, this method of decision making ensures that the most vulnerable will be housed when there is a duty whilst also ensuring the financial interests of the Local Authority are protected. Gatekeeping still happens and probably always will (due to fundamental economics).

All of this is another reason for the OP to seek professional advice from a solicitor (my preference) and not rely on either this forum or the Local Authority for the correct information.

FBaby

6091833 wrote: »

Not really, I don't think. One of my sisters has a young family with no spare beds and my other sister lives with my parents and her baby is now in my old bedroom. They have all helped me out financially to keep me in the apartment this long and to be honest the last thing I want to do is ask if I can go back home to my parents house because I would be kicking my 3 month old nephew out of his bedroom which has been done up as a nursery. There's not even a bed, just a cot. And it just seems like every time I speak to them I'm asking for something and I think they already see me as a burden without even asking if I can move back in.

Sorry but that really made me feel angry to read this, really angry You are going through a really rough patch. It's not like you are a lazy bum looking to have an easy life, you are a young man, who has just lost his girlfriend, who suffers from a very a mental illness known to be very hard to manage. You have lost two jobs, felt like you would be better off this earth, you are about to be evicted, but everyone think it is more important that a 3 months baby should have a bedroom????? Not a 3 yo, but a 3 months old, a baby that couldn't tell the difference which bedroom it sleeps in??

Surely your parents and sister can see that you need urgent help. Why are you more of a burden that your sister and baby is? You lost your job, she decided to have a baby, why is that more worthy of their space, for her AND her baby??

What you need most at the moment is a bit of a break from stress and anxiety, and to be able to lean on those who love you for support and affection. I expect it wouldn't take much of it before you are back on your feet looking for a job and being able to support yourself. This is a so much better alternative that getting your landlord in trouble. She might very well be happy to still give you a decent reference if you move out without too much trouble allowing you to gain proper accommodation as soon as you can afford it. Her reference is precious, much more among other things than a 3 months old baby being able to sleep in their own room.

pmlindyloo

Willing2Learn wrote: »

I agree. The Localism Act is quite clear on this.

Localism Act 2011 s149 amendments to previous legislation include:
(2)For the purpose of subsection (1), an applicant in respect of whom a valid notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (orders for possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) has been given is to be treated as homeless from the date on which that notice expires.
Source: legislation.gov.uk - Localism Act 2011

First, there would not be any duty until the s21 expires.
Second, this is still open to interpretation as to how this would be applied.
Third, If every Local Authority re-housed a vulnerable individual upon expiry of the s21 then every Local Authority would become insolvent overnight.

If a Housing Officer were to ask me to make a decision on such a case I would, as part of the initial enquiries, be asking them to contact the the landlord to confirm they are proceeding with the due legal process to enforce eviction. If the landlord was not then the application would be declined due to not being homeless.

It could be argued that this decision is unlawful and the applicant would be within their rights to appeal such a decision.

I did also state earlier:
IE Local Authorities do routinely make unlawful decisions . This is my experience and I have successfully overturned countless decisions when supporting and advocating for vulnerable service-users. Mostly, this method of decision making ensures that the most vulnerable will be housed when there is a duty whilst also ensuring the financial interests of the Local Authority are protected. Gatekeeping still happens and probably always will (due to fundamental economics).

All of this is another reason for the OP to seek professional advice from a solicitor (my preference) and not rely on either this forum or the Local Authority for the correct information.

This is all perfectly true but in the end if the council has no housing available then what are they supposed to do?

Yes, the OP might get a place in a hostel. Is this preferable to finding a bedsit/lodgings of his own? I think not.

The OP lives in the Manchester area. Just google to find out the problems this area has with homelessness.

I really do think that as the OP has family and is vulnerable at the moment moving back home where he can get support is much the best option or their helping him find suitable lodgings of his own.

Willing2Learn

pmlindyloo wrote: »

This is all perfectly true but in the end if the council has no housing available then what are they supposed to do?

Yes, the OP might get a place in a hostel. Is this preferable to finding a bedsit/lodgings of his own? I think not.

The OP lives in the Manchester area. Just google to find out the problems this area has with homelessness.

I really do think that as the OP has family and is vulnerable at the moment moving back home where he can get support is much the best option or their helping him find suitable lodgings of his own.

I'm not advising anything except to seek professional advice from an independent housing day centre or a solicitor. No-one here knows the exact circumstances and nor have anyone seen seen the supporting evidence. MSE members are therefore in no position to be giving specific advice.

OP - Please seek professional advice and support.

BigAunty

pmlindyloo wrote: »

This is all perfectly true but in the end if the council has no housing available then what are they supposed to do?

Yes, the OP might get a place in a hostel. Is this preferable to finding a bedsit/lodgings of his own? I think not.

The OP lives in the Manchester area. Just google to find out the problems this area has with homelessness.

I really do think that as the OP has family and is vulnerable at the moment moving back home where he can get support is much the best option or their helping him find suitable lodgings of his own.

I hope his family might help too - put the cot into the mother's room, a lot of babies/toddlers share a room, or let him sofa surf. Having company is bound to help him, as is a free place and some breathing space before finding a future tenancy.

A local council in England now only have to offer a 12 month private tenancy to a homeless applicant so this has overcome the previous bottleneck where they were obliged to offer social housing, a diminishing resource with greater and greater demand placed on it.

It doesn't matter that there are loads of homeless in Manchester (a common occurance in all urban cities, I should think). If the council are obligated to assist him by law, then assist him he must. They can't say 'oh, sorry, we've got so many homeless on our books, we're not bothering with you'. They don't get that discretion (just as well, really..).

If he can find his own place, a nice place, when he's feeling so down, then good on him for being able to solve his own issue proactively. He just needs to know he has the legal right to stay where he is until the possession notice is granted and a date of eviction is given.

pmlindyloo

BigAunty wrote: »

I hope his family might help too - put the cot into the mother's room, a lot of babies/toddlers share a room, or let him sofa surf. Having company is bound to help him, as is a free place and some breathing space before finding a future tenancy.

A local council in England now only have to offer a 12 month private tenancy to a homeless applicant so this has overcome the previous bottleneck where they were obliged to offer social housing, a diminishing resource with greater and greater demand placed on it.

It doesn't matter that there are loads of homeless in Manchester (a common occurance in all urban cities, I should think). If the council are obligated to assist him by law, then assist him he must. They can't say 'oh, sorry, we've got so many homeless on our books, we're not bothering with you'. They don't get that discretion (just as well, really..).

I do hope you are right about councils accepting their responsibilities.

My experience with clients is that many councils do not meet their obligations.

I accept that the previous poster's suggestion to get professional advice is good but I can't help but worry that the OP is vulnerable and the stress of all this might be too much.

I am pleased that organisations like CAB are raising the issues of councils not meeting their obligations as part of their social policy but often it is a long drawn out process and in this case the OP needs help and support now.

BigAunty

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I do hope you are right about councils accepting their responsibilities.

My experience with clients is that many councils do not meet their obligations.

....

I did not say that the councils embrace and honour their responsibilities as I'm afraid that I'm with you and other posters who know that councils do not meet their statutory obligations.

They do not have discretion over how they treat the homeless - it is laid down by law. They can't pick and choose.

However, Crisis has monitored how they treat the single homeless and in a mystery shopping exercise, they found that 90% of their test cases were not treated in the way that the law obliged them to be treated. Many homeless were given the runaround and their homelessness claims were not accepted - some couldn't get past the receptionist or were given leaflets, others were lied to by the housing officer (when this was reported, it was found that he gave a false name!).

So that is why the OP should read up on his rights on the Shelter website so he doesn't take any nonsense from Manchester council.