Eviction notice served

mumoftwins

Copy of email from Head of Housing to Hosuing Officer dated 7/12/07

"Update on solicitor's letter requesting a postponement to the appeal on 17/12/07 in order to get a psychiatric report.

I have advised the following:

- JD's medical letters detail anxiety, stress and depression. These seem to be reactive in nature as the client sought treatment at the time of divorce, unemployment and finacial difficulties.

- From our interactions with her, face to face, phone, email and letter, over a period of time, we consider that JD is able to manage her affairs effectively and fend for herself. She does not meet the 'critical test' for vulnerability as we have taken regard to the nature and extent of her illness and housing difficulties.

- If her mental health had required specialist treatment, her GP should have referred her to CMHT/psychiatrist as part of her treatment. This did not happen which would suggest that to be no acute need.

- The final decision on vulnerability rests with the council.

- DBC had postponed the appeal once already and s202 should be within a time frame of 56 days.

- If a postponement is agreed, council would not be able to continue with TA (temporary accomodation) based on the merit of the case."

rog2

mumoftwins wrote: »

- The final decision on vulnerability rests with the council.

Oh really?

Blade26

Thats what I was thinking as well Rog2. Its like me saying that
I am qualified to make that judgement - as if!

KiKi

mumoftwins wrote: »

Copy of email from Head of Housing to Hosuing Officer dated 7/12/07

"- From our interactions with her, face to face, phone, email and letter, over a period of time, we consider that JD is able to manage her affairs effectively and fend for herself. She does not meet the 'critical test' for vulnerability as we have taken regard to the nature and extent of her illness and housing difficulties.
"

:eek: Seriously - what makes these people consider themselves medical experts in the field of mental health? It almost implies that they have serious problems themselves.

How come you were copied into the email, MOT? Or was it an email on your file which you have a copy of?

(Have posted in here a couple of times, but been following this for much longer. Am very much hoping (and praying) for a good outcome for you and the kids. And IT, of course. Leg obsession and all. )

KiKi

poorbabe

:rolleyes: They ain't giving in without a fight are they? Bar stewards :mad:

DBC seem to be most hardnosed council I've heard of. I used to think Lambeth Council was bad but they are positively angelic by comparison.

chevalier

mumoftwins wrote: »

Copy of email from Head of Housing to Hosuing Officer dated 7/12/07

"Update on solicitor's letter requesting a postponement to the appeal on 17/12/07 in order to get a psychiatric report.

I have advised the following:

- JD's medical letters detail anxiety, stress and depression. These seem to be reactive in nature as the client sought treatment at the time of divorce, unemployment and finacial difficulties.

- From our interactions with her, face to face, phone, email and letter, over a period of time, we consider that JD is able to manage her affairs effectively and fend for herself. She does not meet the 'critical test' for vulnerability as we have taken regard to the nature and extent of her illness and housing difficulties.And don't we all put on our best face when we are trying to sort things out. It does not mean when the problems occurred BEFORE the housing officer etc knew MOT that she was worse than now and COULDN'T COPE.

- If her mental health had required specialist treatment, her GP should have referred her to CMHT/psychiatrist as part of her treatment. This did not happen which would suggest that to be no acute need.So MOT is going to be punished for her Dr's failings? That is so carp.

- The final decision on vulnerability rests with the council.Then why get a medical report from an outside body if they know everything about mental health! jeez

- DBC had postponed the appeal once already and s202 should be within a time frame of 56 days.And it they had handled it right and not messed it up so badly, then this wouldn't be an issue and is not MOT's fault.

- If a postponement is agreed, council would not be able to continue with TA (temporary accomodation) based on the merit of the case."

This has made me so:mad: :mad: . I have depression and even if you look like you are coping (and who wouldn't try when you have two children and no OH), you are dead inside. Even getting dressed is an effort, let alone dealing with anything more complex than day to day stuff. I have been extremely lucky in that I have an OH (who is fab), to look after the bills, take some of the slack. But in MOT's case her priority was her children. And now she is going to be punished for that . Talk about a no win situation. If she has neglected the twins, then she would have got into trouble for that.

I really really hope that things go your way on Thursday. I really really hope that they set up an inquiry into how incompetantly and viciously this has been handled. And I hope that lots of heads roll!

Absolutely fuming on MOT's behalf

chev

mumoftwins

Copy of NowMedical report based on their assessment of the psychiatrists report and dated 4th Jan 08:

The issues are:

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY

Further to my previous advice of 24 Oct 07, I acknowledge further representations in this case, and in addition to the above mentioned information, I have also spent some time discussing this case with NB and other housing officers at DBC.

It is the view of DBC that the applicant, in spite of suffering from recognised sypmtoms and depression and anxiety, has considerably neglected to her rent and has at times acted in an unreasonable fashion. As stated in my previous report, I do not believe there to be any overt or conclusive evidence that the applicant was suffering a significant mental illness at the time in question, which would have led to a temporary abhorration of mind or significantly impaired or incapacitated decision-making.

According to Dr W, the applicant suffers from periods of mood instability, possibly obsessive compulsive symptoms, panic attacks, and other symptoms of anxiety. It is likely that she has a mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. there is alos the possibility that she does have some low-grade personality traits that can increase the risk of suffering anxiety and depressive disorders more than personality types that fall within the normal range. However, this is a speculative opinion, and I note that Dr W did not comment on this matter.

Reasons for an individual suffering from a temporary abhorration of mind may include suffering from severe symptoms of depression, such that mental state dips into periods of psychosis and dissociation. There does not appear to be any evidence that this is the case in the applicant's circumstances, nor is there any evidence of significant cognitive impairment, which can be sometimes affect levels of organisation and planning. Indeed, it has been stated by DBC that the applicant has organised herself in many other domains of her life effectively.

Similarly, her depression does not appear so severe that she has suffered marked psychomotor retardation and neurovegetative features such that she has been unable to organise herself. It would seem clear that she has been under significant stress, and this has affected her ability to manage her own affairs. However, there is nothing to suggest that she should not be deemed capacitious or responsible for her own actions.

There is little more that I can offer in tems of assessment of this case. The accompanying psychiatric report by Dr W is relatively brief, and does not provide a comprehensive summary of the applicant's difficulties and mental state. Although I am sympathetic to the applicant's, I would suggest that I have not - in my experience - considered any individual with mental health difficulties such as the applicant's, unable to manage their own affairs and act in a capacitous fashion. However, inevitably, there are gaps in the evidence, and my opinion is to some degree speculative. My opinion is therefore confined to stating that with a high degree of probability, the applicant does not fulfil the criteria outlined in Para 11.17, or Points 1 & 2."

mrsspendalot

That doesn't sound good

DisillusionedAnna

HiMOT

Im off to demand mydoc refers me to CMHT today and grrrrrrrr at the way they have treated u, cos Im not going to stand being made a fool of anymore, my friend who works for PALS said demand to see the Practice Manager at my practice that should be interesting trying to get past Ms Rottweiller the receptionist and her tannoy gob for letting the whole waiting room know your personal business.
Will be demanding ehmm requesting firmly the female doc as well because I couldnt cope with another run in with the male doctor who laughingly is a psychiatrist but he deals with all the local drug folk in rehab and no one can get appointments because there all taken up with the local addicts wanting methadone prescriptions and the waiting room is full of dubious characters all discussing "gear" and there stint at local rehab clinic, god whats the world coming too???
Anna

rog2

To me, at least, that looks like a 'report' that has been written to appease the report writer's paymasters - Dacorum.
It is, again to me, obvious that the 'report writer' is in possession of information, supplied by the Council, that 'could' influence the way in which the report has been written.
Just my opinion.