Eviction notice served

mumoftwins

These posts are very interesting and informative - thank you all. Please also keep your lobbying of Daniel Zammit (CEO of DBC) going especially as it is getting so near to the appeal date!

mumoftwins

beccabooboo wrote: »

Also, now i think about it, i don't think I have ever come across a case where Now Medical have recommended to an Authority that somebody is vulnerable and therefore in Priority need. They seem to take their fee and recommend no vulnerability!!!!

Have emailed you Beckybooboo

gilligansyle

Hi MOT, either MSF has fixed something or my broadband has got faster because today i can finally read this thread again. I had not realised quite how much had been going on, congratulations on holding yourself together through all this. The support you have been receiving both locally and online is amazing.
I really can't believe the attitude of those in authority who think that because you are holding yourself together there is not a problem. The definition of intentionally homeless seems to vary widely between different local authorities, and although technically not paying rent is intentional, they should always look at the reason. Any excuse to get out of putting someone as priority need. There is such a great variety of mental health issues, and you do wonder what guidelines housing staff use, and how they go about involving health professionals in cases like yours.

It's a sad state of affairs whereby if you children's school had reported that the children were neglected in any way, Social Services would be involved and you may have got more help. By doing what any parent does and keeping them clean, healthy and importantly LOVED, you did yourself a disservice. How confusing ???

I know there are lots of aspects to the case, and can't possibly comment on all of them but just wanted to raise my favourite rant. Somewhere, way back in December, there were postings about the CSA and how anything gained from ex came straight off benefit. The CSA was set up to save the govt. money on benefits, not to get help for parents with children. It really annoys me, that anything that is received is deducted from benefits first. On the other hand, anyone not in receipt of benefit got put to the bottom of the list. Didn't mean they weren't struggling though. Its easy to be just above the min threshold for benefits. CSA will do nothing to help those. Sorry, rant over.

Good luck on Thursday

gilligansyle

Hi MOT, either MSF has fixed something or my broadband has got faster because today i can finally read this thread again. I had not realised quite how much had been going on, congratulations on holding yourself together through all this. The support you have been receiving both locally and online is amazing.
I really can't believe the attitude of those in authority who think that because you are holding yourself together there is not a problem. The definition of intentionally homeless seems to vary widely between different local authorities, and although technically not paying rent is intentional, they should always look at the reason. Any excuse to get out of putting someone as priority need. There is such a great variety of mental health issues, and you do wonder what guidelines housing staff use, and how they go about involving health professionals in cases like yours.

I work in Social Housing and I would hope that we treat people better than this, but it does look as if your LA has got some serious procedural problems in the way they handle homelessness.
It's a sad state of affairs whereby if you children's school had reported that the children were neglected in any way, Social Services would be involved and you may have got more help. By doing what any parent does and keeping them clean, healthy and importantly LOVED, you did yourself a disservice. How confusing ???

I know there are lots of aspects to the case, and I can't possibly comment on all of them but just wanted to raise my favourite rant. Somewhere, way back in December, there were postings about the CSA and how anything gained from ex came straight off benefit. The CSA was set up to save the govt. money on benefits, not to get help for parents with children. It really annoys me, that anything that is received is deducted from benefits first. On the other hand, anyone not in receipt of benefit got put to the bottom of the list. Didn't mean they weren't struggling though. Its easy to be just above the min threshold for benefits, and so put to the bottom of the CSA pile because it actually cost money to chase the other partner and nothing would be gained. Sorry rant over.


Good luck on Thursday

gilligansyle

Oops posted same reply twice

mumoftwins

gilligansyle wrote: »

Hi MOT, either MSF has fixed something or my broadband has got faster because today i can finally read this thread again. I had not realised quite how much had been going on, congratulations on holding yourself together through all this. The support you have been receiving both locally and online is amazing.
I really can't believe the attitude of those in authority who think that because you are holding yourself together there is not a problem. The definition of intentionally homeless seems to vary widely between different local authorities, and although technically not paying rent is intentional, they should always look at the reason. Any excuse to get out of putting someone as priority need. There is such a great variety of mental health issues, and you do wonder what guidelines housing staff use, and how they go about involving health professionals in cases like yours.

It's a sad state of affairs whereby if you children's school had reported that the children were neglected in any way, Social Services would be involved and you may have got more help. By doing what any parent does and keeping them clean, healthy and importantly LOVED, you did yourself a disservice. How confusing ???

I know there are lots of aspects to the case, and can't possibly comment on all of them but just wanted to raise my favourite rant. Somewhere, way back in December, there were postings about the CSA and how anything gained from ex came straight off benefit. The CSA was set up to save the govt. money on benefits, not to get help for parents with children. It really annoys me, that anything that is received is deducted from benefits first. On the other hand, anyone not in receipt of benefit got put to the bottom of the list. Didn't mean they weren't struggling though. Its easy to be just above the min threshold for benefits. CSA will do nothing to help those. Sorry, rant over.

Good luck on Thursday

Hi G,

Your comment about 'holding myself together' is quite true - in public that is how I appear as I was brought up by a mother and father whose idea of helping was to say 'pull yourself together'! So outwardly I have this appearance of togetherness but inside and with those that know me well I am falling apart and have been doing so for the last 3 years or so. I came to HH to make a fresh start and was optimistic that this would be a better time for the twins and I - how wrong could I have been? It has just been a series of disasters for us since we moved here. Going through the time leading up to the divorce was bad enough because we were all living in the same house for the 12 -18 months that it took from start to finish then the move etc etc. I really had hoped that the twins and I would be settled and that I would be working in a job that paid well enough for us all to live reasonably comfortably. But I must have done something really bad in a former life to be going through what I am going through now

rog2

Gforce wrote: »

oops sorry teeni, I never noticed:o

I'm glad you reminded us, Gf. It has become more relevant as the case has progressed.

rog2

Wol2 wrote: »

It helps me to know that in going public, I might be able to provide some type of "validation" to others (hard word but describes it best and the effect was v.important to me when I received it in my situation) and perhaps therefore reassurance to someone else.

Well done Wol2 - you have, in your second ever post on this forum, summed up the whole 'ethod' of DFW. It's all about sharing our own experiences, and the knowledge that we have gained from those experiences, with others who find themselves in similar circumstances.
MOT's thread has brought out the best in people and proved that not only is DFW a place for 'support' but is made up of some extremely experienced and knowledgable posters.
I'm glad to see that you have emerged, by the sound of it - relatively unscathed, from the dark zone.

teeni

silvercar wrote: »

In reverse order, if the appeal find against dacorum, MoT and twins remain in their emergency accomodation until Dacorum offer them something more suitable and long term.

If Dacorum win in appeal then MoT will has already been given notice to leave the emergency accomodation on a certain date (can't remember exactly when but January). Dacorum will have judged that MoT made herself "intentionally homeless" and therefore the council have no obligation to provide housing.

MoT would then be obliged to find herself accomodation in the private rented sector. This would prove difficult with no landlord reference and no employment plus, with MoTs health difficulties she needs the security of long term housing rather than 6 month ASTs.

If the reveiw panel find against mot her solicitor can apply to court if there is an error in law in the l/a case. they can also request the the court order l/a to acc mot for the period of the appeal.

To appeal mot would need to be accepted for legal aid to cover the costs, then ask the court for permission to appeal.

if she has no case then to appeal she will have to find private acc.

so all may not be lost even if the review fails.

teeni

rog2 wrote: »

I'm glad you reminded us, Gf. It has become more relevant as the case has progressed.

very true, this thread is very long and it is difficult to remember all the details.