Eviction notice served

floss2

vandanfc wrote: »

Floss, Ampersand etc, do you interpret the relevance of this ruling in the same way I do, or am I clutching at straws ?

I think that's absolutely spot-on & that has to be the way to go...when I was working in a Council Homeless Office in a previous life, we used to deal with Shelter in Chester, and Martha Unwin was as sharp as a box of very sharp knives. Thats why I suggested trying their HO to get assistance, the local Shelter seem to be in a "we never win against them" mentality, which will not help MoT & the twins.

I think that the appeal has to be on the grounds that MoT did not deliberately do anything to make her homeless, which has been upheld in XXX v XXX.

Just had a thunk - would it be worth contacting that barrister & asking if he can act for you as a Pro Bono case (free legal work) on the grounds of that ruling?

Love Floss xx

poorbabe

Hi (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((MoT/I-T and the children))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :grouphug:

I've been following this post for a few weeks now and am amazed that the council ruled against you. I was rehoused for a lesser reason than yours, although my council tried to fob me off at first :mad: .

The support shown by 'the gang' here is just wonderful. All I can do is hope/pray that you win through in the end as I can't yet think of anything that hasn't already been suggested.

All the best.

mumoftwins

floss2 wrote: »

I think that's absolutely spot-on & that has to be the way to go...when I was working in a Council Homeless Office in a previous life, we used to deal with Shelter in Chester, and Martha Unwin was as sharp as a box of very sharp knives. Thats why I suggested trying their HO to get assistance, the local Shelter seem to be in a "we never win against them" mentality, which will not help MoT & the twins.

I think that the appeal has to be on the grounds that MoT did not deliberately do anything to make her homeless, which has been upheld in XXX v XXX.

Just had a thunk - would it be worth contacting that barrister & asking if he can act for you as a Pro Bono case (free legal work) on the grounds of that ruling?

Love Floss xx

Sorry Floss, have a brain like cotton wool at the moment - which barrister are you referring to please?

mumoftwins

Have had a long telephone conversation with Saffronflowers just before lunch and she has come up with some good ideas for 'evidence' for the appeal - one of which is to contact MIND to get them to confirm depression and it really affects me with coping. So I have just rung them and made an appt for tomorrow morning at 10.45am! Will tell them everything that has happened to me in the last umpteen years and see what they can do to help - what does anyone else on here think?

Have also booked an appt with my MP at his next available surgery which is on the 26th November and the appt is at 4.30pm.

Gillianh2

HI,

Good for you making the appt; with Mind, write down everything today as you go along, I| do mean everything as you remember it, just in case tmwr you "forget" something this happens to me all the time:rolleyes: And please dont be afraid to let your guard down, I know you have the same type of depression as me "smiling" all the time. Now the guard has to come down Mum Mind will help you all the way, pointing you in the direction of getting the correct help for your depression and the help to get you properly rehoused.

Well Done on making that appt; PM me or txt me if you think I can offer any help.

)))))))))))))))))))HUGS)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

ampersand

The Barrister is Adam Fullwood - and Chambers' Ethos Statement, top righthand corner, is worth reading.
I'd ring and ask for an ethical fellow traveller in the Herts area.
I'd also definitely link them to this thread.
##########################
Be bold, strike deep - and send it now mot.
##########################
vandan fc and saffronflower, more marvellous posts and how I enjoyed the underlined bit for a moment[what a pity the mot's two are not asbo bound!
Falling short there, I'm afraid.]
Success in "intentionally homeless" appeal

26/08/2005

Follow link to read Adam Fullwood's report on a successful outcome in the matter of an appeal under Housing Act 1996, s204 against an "intentionally homeless" decision.

Susan Dodd v Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council

Chester County Court, HHJ Clarke, 26.08.2005
Case summary
A possession order was granted against the Appellant based on 4 admissions of anti-social behaviour by her children. In granting possession the trial judge said that the children "could have been avoided" and "could have been controlled". The Appellant went to live with her mother and applied for assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 to Wulvern Housing (who owned the property following a large scale transfer of the Council's housing stock). They decided that the Appellant was intentionally homeless. She applied for a review that was carried out by the Council. On review the original decision was upheld on two main grounds. Firstly, that the court process had already established that the Appellant was responsible for her children and the judge had found that she could have controlled her children. Secondly, that the Appellant had not done all that she could have done to remedy the behaviour of her children.
On appeal under section 204 His Honour Judge Clarke found that the reviewing officer had misdirected herself in law. Under section 191 a person can only be intentionally homeless if she deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which she loses her accommodation that was reasonable for to continue to occupy. The word "deliberately" was of the utmost importance. This was not a case where the Appellant had deliberately done anything herself which caused the loss of her home. Further, in relation to the question whether she had deliberately failed to do anything, the correct test was not the same as that applied by the court in a claim for possession. The mere failure to control children who caused anti-social behaviour could not give rise to a finding that she had deliberately failed to do anything in consequence of which that person lost their accommodation. In this case the Appellant had cooperated and engaged with all relevant agencies. The reviewing officer decided that the Appellant had not done all she could reasonably have done but failed to identify what she had deliberately failed to do or even could have done. In the circumstances and after considering the decision of Griffiths v. St Helens MBC the decision was set aside and remitted to a different reviewing officer for a further review. The Council were ordered to pay the Appellant's costs.
Martha Unwin, Shelter, Chester; Adam Fullwood , Barrister, Manchester.
###########
vandanfc - seriously, yes I agree and find no flaw.
Am also rummaging in the glories of cyberspace, but suspect we are all finding same Case Law references.
Back later.
###########
I'll just add this:
http://www.gcnchambers.co.uk/index.php/gcn/barristers/fullwood
CONTACT THIS SET TODAY mot, please!
###########
I have now, several hours later, underlined the sections in the judgment obtained by Adam Fullwood which I believe you equally can rely on in Law.
Many more links and confirmations, but won't add them for now.
The point of citing these ref.s now is to give you Case Law to cite as precedent.
re: my later post, citing Hansard will serve the same purpose.

saffronflowers

Right I have found several contraventions in the ""Homelessness Code for Guidcance for Local Authorities" which is a great starting point - the most key at the moment that being in rent arrears is not necessarily a deliberate act to enable intentional homelessness. As discussed with MOT - I am going to do a time line and see if it conforms with various pieces of information that has been I have unearthed!!

MOT - as I said to you earlier - there will be an end and a solution! We just dont know what it is yet, but you are so great to have done the two things I suggested so far!! Means we can just have a natter on Monday!

SFx

saffronflowers

This is because you have lost your last settled accommodation as a result of rent arrears. From information already provided and investigation carried out it would appear that your accommodation was affordable There definition of affordable would be an intersting readand that you had sufficient income to maintain regular payments. SSP Is not sufficient monies to cover such a rent You were in receipt of Housing Benefit, which was £***.**every fortnight, and though you had a shortfall this was affordable.Not unless all SSP and HB went on paying rent You have confirmed that you used this money for other things instead. There were no severe medical issues " Assessment of vulnerability due to mental health will require close co-operation between housing authorities, social services authorities and mental health agencies. Houseing authorities should consider carrying out joint assessments or using atrained mental health practitioner as part of an assesment team. "that would prevent you from managing your affairs. From your own statements and having dealt with you for the past month, I can confirm that you do manage all other affairs well without any help or support from any agency.Urm maybe they should read this thread! You do not have problems paying any other bills and have managed to maintain a three-bedroom accommodation as well as care for your two children. Managed to care for the children - cos used the HB to care for them!!

I am not at this point going to reveal the sources of my info - (well I will to MOT but dont want to prejudice any info that MOT might need for the appeal

SFx

Gillianh2

Saffronflowers well done on unearthing all this.xxxxxxxxxxxxx

mumoftwins

Tomorrow I will give you a full posting of what has happened over the last few days but for now - my Housing Assoc Support Worker called on Tuesday and went through various things to do to go forward from here, one of which was to contact Social Services (the council automatically send a referral through) to see what they can do to help re: re-housing, deposits etc. So I rang and spoke to a woman called Melanie who said that I can apply for a Crisis Loan (again! still not heard about the one for removal costs from 6 weeks ago!!! and yes, I have chased them several times) and that SS may be able to make up any difference.

However, this pm I had a phone call from here telling me that I have to go to a meeting with her next Tuesday at 4pm and to bring the twins with me as she needs to assess their needs - DD will freak out completely if she knows this as she keeps crying and saying that she doesn't want to be taken from me. Neither does DS but he keeps it more to himself.

Does anyone know what is likely to happen at this meeting please?