Eviction notice served

mumoftwins

Gill, have read last nights email and will reply later xx

mumoftwins

Just googled the Head of the Homeless Units name and found these minutes from a council meeting last year - anyone got any opinions on this? I have and would interested to see what you say!



TALK – **C HOUSING HOMELESS APPEALS
The Chairman welcomed Ms ****** of ****** Council's Housing
Homelessness Unit and Mr ******, Operations Manager of **** Emergency
Night Shelter (*ENS), who had come to speak on ******Homelessness Appeals process.
Homelessness could be the result of many circumstances including eviction and failure to gain
social housing. Ms ***** outlined the process, which was open to any homeless
person who was dissatisfied with the decision of the Borough Council. Mr ***** put the
reservations about the process expressed by Shelter. It felt that appellants were not receiving a
fair hearing, in that the written procedure was not clear, and the Hearing Panel was not
properly constituted in that it had insufficient representation from those with expertise in
deprivation, mental illness and the like.

Councillor Mrs ***** declared a personal interest as she was a current member of the
Appeals Panel; and Councillor ***** declared a personal interest as he had been a member
of the Appeals Panel.

Answering questions, Ms ****** said that the members of the Panel were trained; the
decision of the panel itself was open to an appeal in the County Court, which was funded by
the public purse; and the written process was transparent, and that too much reliance on that
process delayed an Appeal, which was subject to strict timetables. Councillors were divided
on whether those on the panel represented a sufficiently wide spectrum of opinion and
experience; and whether more reliance on the written appeal process would delay or obviate
the need for hearings. There was some disquiet that withdrawal of funding from Shelter and
taking the ****C's own Housing Advice Centre back into the Civic Centre undermined support
for those appealing; and that holding all Panels during the working day excluded younger,
economically-active councillors taking part. The Chairman thanked Ms **** and Mr
***** for attending. The Committee decided to allow time for Councillor **** to
examine the written procedure adopted by *****and ***** District Councils and
come back to Planning Committee on 5th June 2006.
-4809-

teeni

I think this explains a lot about Shelters reluctance in this case. If they have had funding withdrawn they were obviously being too succesful and challenging the process used by the authority. Ths authority by making housing advice in house are failing to allow applicants to have independant advice as the authoritys view is going to be one sided.

The fact that the decision at review is challengable via appeal at county court is true but irrelevant as although it is payable by the public purse (legal aid) this is only if you are entitled to it. often applicants are not eligible and cannot afford to go through this process as if it does fail they could be landed with costs of both sides which may be considerable.

They may not want to take the risk even if the case is fairly good. also they can only appeal ona point of law and not because the decision is bad.

This was however in 2006 and folowing the review of the procedure may now have been changed again.

floss2

Have you been able to find minutes of the meeting on 5th June 2006, after the procedure was examined?

Anyway, I thought you were going back to bed MoT?!

Love Floss xx

mumoftwins

floss2 wrote: »

Have you been able to find minutes of the meeting on 5th June 2006, after the procedure was examined?

Anyway, I thought you were going back to bed MoT?!

Love Floss xx

:rotfl: Ha ha Floss:rotfl: Just spent a delicious 3 hours in bed on my own and slept:j

Re: the minutes of the meeting I will have a look and see what I can find.

Teeni, I will pm you as what I want to say perhaps shouldn't be on main board (feel free to be included anyone!)

mumoftwins

floss2 wrote: »

Have you been able to find minutes of the meeting on 5th June 2006, after the procedure was examined?

Anyway, I thought you were going back to bed MoT?!

Love Floss xx

Floss, this is what I have found so far, going to try and find the Three Rivers DC Document

13465. **C HOUSING HOMELESS APPEALS
This item had been referred from the Planning Committee meeting held on 5th June 2006 (Minute
13409). Councillor ***** confirmed that since then he had received no further questions from
councillors on this subject. There was discussion, and it was generally agreed that the Council
favoured the approach to Appeals set out in the Three Rivers DC document. It was decided that
Councillor **** would draw up suitable wording for a response to **C setting out this view; but
before submission by the Clerk he would pass it by Councillors ***** and Mrs ***** for agreement.

floss2

mumoftwins wrote: »

Teeni, I will pm you as what I want to say perhaps shouldn't be on main board (feel free to be included anyone!)

Me too please!

Thanks, Floss xx

P.S. hope you feel better for a few hours of good kip!

mumoftwins

Have had a pm from Ampersand and she has found me a solicitor about 15 miles away who specialises in this sort of thing - so I have put a call into him to discuss.

rog2

teeni wrote: »

Whilst Shelter is A Charity it is funded by the legal services commision to provide legal advice and advocacy on all housing issues, the staff are not volunteers but fully trained legal advisors and often solicitors.

Hi teeni - I hope you did not misinterpret my remarks - I was not denegrating Shelter in any way, and I have to say that they, as a charity, perform excellent work. I was unaware that they do not use volunteers, and I apologise, unreservedly, for any unintentional misunderstanding that my post may have given.

Your second post clarifies, to me, the situation - especially with regard to mot's Council.

I have been looking through the minutes of the 'Appeals' held by mot's Council - I am still looking, but have yet to find a case of 'intentional homelessness' where the appeal went in favour of the apellant - in fact, almost without exception, the appeals tend to take exactly the same format, with exactly the same outcome. They are heard 'in private' (allegedly to protect the identity of the apellant) yet are minuted, with the apellant being referred to as Mr/Mrs X, Y, Z etc, so we do not really get to know exactly what is said.

As far as I have seen, so far, the appeals seem to consist of a two sentence statement that it is considered that the accomadation was, suitable and affordable and that the apellant is, therefore, deemed to have made themselves 'intentionally homeless'.

I do not know how, if a tenant is evicted, that this can be judged as 'Intentional Homelessness'. We ALL know that, in mot's case, she was evicted through absolutely no fault of her own, yet her HLO/Council, appears to be ignoring her particular circumstances to the point where one could, easily, be forgiven for thinking that the only "Intention" is that of a Council who have little or no intention of 'helping' mot unless or until it is forced to do so by the power of the law.

I find this doubly disappointing as mot's Council, on their website, are extremely keen to promote the 'Help and Advice' that they can offer, in many languages, for those experiencing housing problems.

I also find it interesting that mot's Council are not 'strack for cash', yet they are quite prepared to 'force' apellants, such as mot, to go 'cap in hand' for legal aid (to which she may or may not be entitled) in order to stand any chance of getting her appeal decision reversed.

This is one reason that I suggest that mot goes to CAB, as they MAY be able to refer her to a Solicitor who specialises in these types of cases.

mumoftwins

teeni wrote: »

I think this explains a lot about Shelters reluctance in this case. If they have had funding withdrawn they were obviously being too succesful and challenging the process used by the authority. Ths authority by making housing advice in house are failing to allow applicants to have independant advice as the authoritys view is going to be one sided.

The fact that the decision at review is challengable via appeal at county court is true but irrelevant as although it is payable by the public purse (legal aid) this is only if you are entitled to it. often applicants are not eligible and cannot afford to go through this process as if it does fail they could be landed with costs of both sides which may be considerable.

They may not want to take the risk even if the case is fairly good. also they can only appeal ona point of law and not because the decision is bad.

This was however in 2006 and folowing the review of the procedure may now have been changed again.

Hi Teeni,

Meant to ask you - why would Shelter have had funding withdrawn please?