Eviction notice served

floss2

mumoftwins wrote: »

Hi Floss,

Ummm.........on the subject of my wardrobe, I didn't know how long we would be here in the flat when I was packing to leave the old house so my wardrobe is somewhat 'hit and miss':eek: and consists of a pair of jeans, a pair of black pinstripe trousers, several jumpers suitable for wearing with jeans and a 'posh' top for evening wear!!!!!!!!! Perhaps you could help me out with the decision? I think I may have a plain black v neck sweater in amongst it all?

Or maybe I should do what MissPoppy suggested and go through the bins at the back of Asda??

Have you decided yet SF?

Go with the black - doesn't matter if it's not sparkly new, in fact that maybe a good thing, because it shows you haven't been frittering your HB on clothes for you!

Also, it looks more business like.......and boy, do you mean business

Love from Floss, the wardrobe-mistress!

mumoftwins

Feel like I have been Trinny and Susannah'd:rotfl:

Thank you SF for leaving early on Thursday am:A

Feeling very shaky at mo

silvercar

No need to feel shaky though understandable, you have been dressed for the occasion and you will have SF for support.

Be really funny if the appeal chairman comments on your dress and tells you your thread advisors were right. Someone in the room is bound to have read this thread!

floss2

silvercar wrote: »

No need to feel shaky though understandable, you have been dressed for the occasion and you will have SF for support.

Be really funny if the appeal chairman comments on your dress and tells you your thread advisors were right. Someone in the room is bound to have read this thread!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Now you've been dressed, you can stop feeling wobbly and go for a walk in the fresh air.....:D

misspoppy

Hi MOT

I think your image will certainly be under scrutiny on the day and it needs to be carefully planned. I was on a jury who dismissed someone as unreliable simply for her clothing which I found incredible.

I think you need to be smart but not business like and would not recomend a suit I think the smart black trousers and jumper sounds perfect, smart but not over the top.

take care and sending you good thoughts.

M

christabell

MOT, you need to put on that new Vera Wang dress you bought, your pearls and of course the Louis Vuitton bag and shoes.....don't forget your gloves.

First time I went to a DWP medical I was "professionally dressed" I off course failed the medical, and by being professionally dressed it was construed as I was fine and not living down the bottom of a black well of depression. Off course the fact that my wardrobe was filled with business suits had nothing to do with the fact that I had had (even through depression) a work ethic.

The DWP did not see inside my flat, especially under the sofa where my Council Tax Bill had been living with all my other bills at the time, that bill was only paid when I was threatened with court, not help for my depression.......


I find it such a pity that DBC are putting so much energy into evicting their clients, surely it would be better if they put their energy into housing their clients?

Good Luck my dear. We readers of this post know the real you. To DBC you and the twins are a number and a statistic, especially for somebody "who only lost two appeals in 2007"

mumoftwins

Had phone call from solicitor - DBC's witnesses are to be: the Housing Officer, Snr Housing Officer and Head of Housing, they may be calling one more witness but they're not sure yet

rog2

mumoftwins wrote: »

Had phone call from solicitor - DBC's witnesses are to be: the Housing Officer, Snr Housing Officer and Head of Housing, they may be calling one more witness but they're not sure yet

Is it coincidence that all of their witnesses are employed by the Housing Department?

Even if they are not yet sure, are they not obliged to disclose the name/occupation of the possible additional witness, in order that your solicitor can have the opportunity, if required, to 'question' that person's input?

mumoftwins

rog2 wrote: »

Is it coincidence that all of their witnesses are employed by the Housing Department?

Even if they are not yet sure, are they not obliged to disclose the name/occupation of the possible additional witness, in order that your solicitor can have the opportunity, if required, to 'question' that person's input?

I believe so, so she will be chasing council tomorrow as we have to be allowed to be prepared for questioning of that witness!

saffronflowers

MOT - in all honesty they will basing their opinion on their time dealing with homelessness not the causation that leads to homelessness.

At the end of the day we all need to remember the case is in fact very simple -

MOT due to a variety of extenuating circumstances fell behind in her rent due to ill health and a history of depression.

MOT - received housing benefit (though incorrectly worked out) and rightly or wrongly used this to keep her children fed and watered.

MOTs LL began to put undue pressure on her that lead to a difficulty within their communication breakdown.

LL applied for repossesion for his house. Sadly, as much as we feel it is relevant his wish to sell the house it is irrelevant as the Possession Order was for non- payement.

DBC made assumtions regarding MOT due to her visual apperance and their scant knowledge of mental health that she had willfully not paid her rent.

MOT found MSE that has supported her every step of the way for both the highs and the lows. This does not mean that MOT has coped she has had a framework around her to survive with IT being her back bone.

DBC call in their medical specialist, who without discussion with any of the proffesionals, only reading reports made a very short appraisal of the situation and concluded that their was no mental health issues.

MOT's solicitor gained the services of an extremely knowledable Psychologist who specialisises in this field who concluded having not just spoken to MOT but IT and performed some very highly evolved test, with some having counterbalances that concluded that MOT was suffering from acute Mental Health issues and in the past and at presant was really only able to cope with the day to day care of her children, at which she excelled as this was/is her main focus. It also concluded that her need for housing was paramount and that she had not willfully allowed her to become into this position.

DBC - are there to do a job and this appeal is to illustrate, where they came to the wrong conclusions and allow them to rectify the situation.

SFx