Homeless in 10 days refused RSL allocation

rtho782

Me and my partner have worked hard the last 5 years or so getting her through uni, saving for a house deposit, and buying our first home.

We haven't had a holiday - UK or abroad - in years.

Holidays are not a right!

OP can easily find a private rental with this amount of capital I don't understand the obsession with going for a RSL.

And £10k on furniture IS a lot, I assume they have a sofa, bed etc already, short of deciding they need an £1800 Miele washing machine, and a £2500 range cooker, I don't see where they are spending this cash.

JazzaG

HappyMJ wrote: »

You had a home that you voluntarily sold. You aren't considered statutory homeless despite someone in the council saying you may be so you've got to find a private rental and the sooner you do that the sooner you'll get a roof over your head. The RSL's have to prioritize housing and they will not allocate housing to someone with £25,000 in the bank. They do not have to follow the council's allocation policy.

If in 8 days you still haven't found a private rental the council will find you an expensive B&B that you can stay in temporarily which you will have to pay for and only once your money gets to less than £16,000 will the RSL give you a tenancy on one of their properties.

Housing Options Homelessness Section says I am statutory homeless because I had no option to sell my house or go into debt. They were the ones who advised me to sell. I am classed as unintentionally homeless. The have informed me that the have a Main Homeless Duty (Statutory Homelessness Duty). They have given me Band A, High Needs Priority Plus on the choice based lettings scheme. The council transferred 80% of it's houses to the charity RSL and 20% between 5 other RSL's, including one other charity RSL. Only the larger charity RSL says i'm not eligible for for their houses, although I can still bid on all the other RSLs in the scheme. Do you really think that a charity which is, in effect, only managing the councils housing stock should have more status than a Government Statute made by an Act of Parliament (The Housing Act 1996 parts 6 and 7, as amended by The Housing Act 2002)?

JazzaG

deannatrois wrote: »

I wonder if it would be worth getting your local councillor or MP involved?

I was speaking to my solicitor today, she said the same thing. I am going try and get an appointment or enquire when his surgery is on next, thanks.
Did you check about your priority or banding status while you are in emergency accommodation?

JazzaG

HappyMJ wrote: »

£16,000 isn't a low threshold but I do agree it hasn't changed for quite a long time.

The RSL cannot produce any documentation or show me any policy that gives this or any other figure to use. I think she is using the housing benefit and income support cap figure in error. She says it is an internal policy, and not available to the public, The Lettings Policy states that they must be transparent, so a customer can work out their own chance of eligibility (and banding). How are you supposed to work out your chance of eligibility if they do not make such an important part of the criteria available to the public. This RSL is also supposed to offer those who have got enough money a shared-ownership property, so why is that affordability figure for home-ownership not used as the limit for their rental housing? In fact, if someone who can afford home ownership is eligible for their list, why am I not.

xylophone

You mention that you have a pension - under the circumstances (and assuming that you are over 55), could you not have accessed it to avoid selling the house?

[Deleted User]

JazzaG wrote: »

I was speaking to my solicitor today, she said the same thing. I am going try and get an appointment or enquire when his surgery is on next, thanks.
Did you check about your priority or banding status while you are in emergency accommodation?

I didn't answer first time you asked cause this is your thread lol. I don't think my problem is solveable and hopefully yours is.

But I am accepted as homeless and been given a band c which is low need. The council refuse to give any further priority due to having two kids and myself with ASD. We are housed as far as they are concerned, and according to them, homeless people can only have a C priority full stop. My son's social worker says with the evidence she's submitted, any other council in Kent would give us band A or B but it seems to be up to my council what they do. My MP says he won't interfere with housing policy. I've approached Shelter, and two other Housing Charities that I was told would help but they will only help with filling in paper work, not insisting that what the council is doing is allowing inequality. To me it seems obvious that a family with ASD needs a higher priority (stability, safe surroundings etc) than the average homeless family. But it seems to be obvious only to me. I've not even been able to get a sensible explanation from the housing office just 'you're homeless this is the way it is'.

So that's the answer but please don't spend any time on my problem. Concentrate on yours.

So back to you. I don't know how much you've been able to do. If you are going to be homeless imminently, and I assume at the moment there's no permanent housing happening, you will have to make sure you get the best emergency accommodation you can. In my case I had to get medical/social work professionals to write in and explain why MY council's usual practice of putting families into single room hostel accommodation would harm the health of our family. That's why we are in a council two bed maisonette rather than a hostel. It took about two weeks to be assessed but could probably be done quicker.

I'd advise you to find out what the council are planning to put you in, argue with professional backing why that's not suitable and who knows, permanent housing might even magically appear (they might actually see sense lol)? Different councils do different things, some use B&B, some use hostels as emergency housing. I apologise if you've already done all this. Hopefully you can get the letters quickly if you haven't already done all this.

I hope you have been able to get the house packed up. Remember that you might be charged if you leave too much stuff behind (depends on the attitude of the new owners).

JazzaG

xylophone wrote: »

You mention that you have a pension - under the circumstances (and assuming that you are over 55), could you not have accessed it to avoid selling the house?

Not for 6 years unfortunately.

JazzaG

Just a quick update for anyone who was following this thread.
We were given temporary council housing the day before we became physically homeless. It was a furnished 3 bedroom house, an outreach property run by Benjamin Court, the local homeless hostel. We were not allowed any of our own furniture in the property, and were only allocated a 4ft by 4ft cubical in a warehouse to store our belongings. We easily filled this with boxes of belongings and some small items of furniture. When the council saw how much stuff we had stored in the property, they gave us 24 hours to clear it out or be evicted.
We were not allowed to have our dog in the property, even though we were the only occupants. The house was in the middle of an ordinary council estate, and the 2 houses to the left of us, 1 house to the right, 1 house in front and 1 house behind all had dogs, some also had cats. Imagine how frustrating having to clean up your garden of someone elses cat's waste when your own pet is not allowed in!
We were not allowed visitors, night or day, except from the authority. This also included the boys friends.
We were not allowed any alcohol IN the property, let alone drink any. The property was inspected weekly to ensure we were not breaking any of these rules. The staf were allowed to let themselves into the property with thier own keys, even if we were still in bed or not in!
We were treated as if we had been rehomed off the street, with a shoppimg cart of rubbish and a bottle in a brown paper bag, not like respectable grandparents who had lived in thier own property for the last 25 years.
For the priveledge of being treated like dirt, we were given the honor of paying £458.22 per week.
Luckily, I had applied for a home through St Vincent's Housing Association, who, although a charitable organisation, set thier threshold much higher (£125,000), so we only had to stay in the temporary property for a couple of months.
We now have a lovely home, with a downstairs loo, in a lovely village. Suffice to say we couldn't afford to spend as much as we would have liked on furniture etc., thanks to the council we didnt have enough left. Thanks to all those of you who gave me advice, and the naysayers too, we are all entitlted to our own opinion, that is what these forums are all about.

catshark88

Unbelievable!

JazzaG

I find it unbelievable that the council are allowed to charge such extortionate rent to those who have no other choice. We were told the high rent was because it was "supported" housing. As far as we were concerned, the only thing I could attribute as "support" were the unannounced visits made to ensure we were not doing anything which would get us throw out!
We were told we were lucky that this house had become available, otherwise we would have been given rooms in the main hostel, which was literally a locked down site, with high security fencing and a secure gate which could only be opened by staff.
I have had more than a few comments about the amount of rent we had to pay. Nearly everyone I told said that I must mean £458 monthly, not weekly, especially for a council property!
These high charges are usually unknown to the general population because the majority of homeless people qualify for housing benefit, which we did not.