Dbc 1 - Mot 0

mumoftwins

saffronflowers wrote: »

Reviewing my notes and peices of info - this is interesting

3. Witnesses shall be present only when giving evidence unless both sides agree
otherwise. The Appellant’s and the Housing Department Representative will
however be present throughout the presentation of the case.

Sfx

So a certain HO who was also a witness should not have been at the meeting for the whole time then?

bank_of_slate

Hey MOT, how was the lunch? not too much of a grilling I hope!
...Linda xx

mumoftwins

My reply to Viktory is:

I appreciate you taking the time to post on here and yes your comments may be seen as harsh, but I suspect that you, like the councils, feel that my case should only be allowed if I tick the 'right boxes'? There is no room for anything outside of these 'boxes' to be considered, and each case is different I feel that many people such as myself don't 'fit the criteria' for LA housing. Unfortunately the real world isn't like that and each case should be considered on its own merit and allowances be made for individuals with circumstances that are outside the 'normal' guidelines.

For instance, in this house where I live, there are 2 girls who have 'deliberately' got themselves pregnant so that they will be given a house and their boyfriends will move in once they are settled. There is a girl here also who has 'fallen out' with her baby's father and wants rehousing, however, she is with the baby's father every night until all hours. The other woman has a daughter here (of junior school age) with her and just upped and left her rented property in another area and applied to this council as homeless.

You see everyone has a different story to tell, and as such should be given the opportunity to apply for housing as an individual and to have their case looked at from all angles - not to be a 'tick in a box'.

christabell

Thank you to all the people who have posted on the last two pages. I respect your opinion very much. That is what I like so much about this website. However I do believe that MOT has been let down by the DWP. The being turned down for a Crisis Loan and Social fund was very difficult for me to swallow.

I am on long term IB, IS and DLA. However when I have filled out the forms for the relevant claims I have been turned down, yet when my forms are filled in my my adviser most of my claims have been accepted.

On one DWP interview I was told that "Ignorance ( of how/what benefits to claim) was no excuse", however, it seems that the staff at the DWP really do not want to help people in genuine need fill out the forms. We hear often (especially on BBC Radio4/Moneybox) that £M's of benefits go unclaimed. Perhaps this is why.

Maybe if each person had their own case worker adviser there would be less "benefit fraud" and folks like MOT who at present needs a hand up and not a hand out would be able to get back to full health (mental and physical) so she could again provide a roof over their heads and food on their table.

mumoftwins

bank_of_slate wrote: »

Hey MOT, how was the lunch? not too much of a grilling I hope!
...Linda xx

Actually it wasn't as bad as I was expecting, I-T and I had the opportunity to discuss at length the appeal and their reaction was positive! I'm quietly amazed!!

mumoftwins

christabell wrote: »

Thank you to all the people who have posted on the last two pages. I respect your opinion very much. That is what I like so much about this website. However I do believe that MOT has been let down by the DWP. The being turned down for a Crisis Loan and Social fund was very difficult for me to swollow.

I am on long term IB, IS and DLA. However when I have filled out the forms for the relevant claims I have been turned down, yet when my forms are filled in my my adviser most of my claims have been accepted.

On one DWP interview I was told that "Ignorance ( of how/what benefits to claim) was no excuse", however, it seems that the staff at the DWP really do not want to help people in genuine need fill out the forms. We hear often (especially on BBC Radio4/Moneybox that £M's of benefits go unclaimed. Perhaps this is why.

Maybe if each person had their own case worker adviser there would be less "benefit fraud" and folks like MOT who at present needs a hand up and not a hand out would be able to get back to full health (mental and physical) so she could again provide a roof over their heads and food on their table.

CB, you are so right! The forms seem easy enough to fill in, so you do them yourself - then get turned down. So why is it any different when the forms are filled in by an advisor is it any different Sorry I am allowing for the fact that a lot of intelligent folk can actually fill in a form and hope not to be demeaning to anyone by this - I'm just confused??

Blade26

Pania - you have yet another PM!

briona

viktory wrote: »

...I despair of the vitriol and hatred that so many on MSE have poured onto the council in question and worse, so much worse, the Housing Officer that was doing her job.

I know a lot of you feel that MOT did not make herself intentionally homeless, but she didn't pay her rent. She was in receipt of HB yet still didn't pay. I am not going into MOT's alleged mental health issues for the same reason the council didn't - there is nothing now to suggest that she was mentally unstable and unable to pay her rent then.

There are others on MSE that have been evicted - genuinely through no fault of their own and they are just getting on with it. They don't have a huge fan club and they are taking responsibility for their own lives. I applaud them.

Viktory, I have read through your post a few times and feel compelled to reply...

I think that the MSE-ers' collective disgust at the council and its frustratingly heart-breaking decision is MORE than warranted. For one person, never mind a mother of two young children, to have been through what MOT has over the past couple of years, and yet now to reach a point where the council washes its hands of her (the very same council that was allegedly PRAISED by the government a little over a year ago for its approach to homelessness) beggars belief.

http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3989

As was pointed out on the other thread, were MOT a drug addict, an alcoholic, an ex-con, of different ethnicity, an asylum seeker... the list goes on, but were she any of these things, there would be far more help available to her now. As she is none of these, she has to face the wrath of a disinterested council willing to condemn a mother and her two children to the streets... And we call ourselves a first world country?

Just reading her story has brought tears to my eyes, and no doubt many others. I have to strongly object to the "fan club" bit in your post, as when MOT posted here it was never to set one up, but people have been genuinely touched by her predicament and wish to be of assistance in any way possible. The way MSE-ers have rallied round is very admirable, especially when you take into consideration the fact that this is the DFW board, home to many in dire financial straits. And yet it is these same people who are willing to donate a minor sum, or drive miles across the country to help someone they consider worse off – for me that truly restores one's faith in human kindness.

ampersand

saffronflowers wrote: »

Sadly, her MP's hands are tied their is nothing he can do as the procedure has bben correctly followed even if we do not like the decision.

SFx

############
Salut SF -
I think the point that sticks in craw re:MP, is his failure to make any contact, give any support, after his great rallying cry and and declarations to mot and i-t at their meeting on 30 November. This has been followed by complete silence, beyond Press Button Christmas greetings em to mot. For myself, there have been autoresponses.

rog2

bank_of_slate wrote: »

We must not allow this to slip down the board!

I don't think that there is much chance of that, b_o_s. :rotfl: :rotfl:

I have not been around to post for the last couple of days, and have found it difficult to 'keep up' with the speed that this thread is growing.
Whilst I have 'speed read' the first 10 pages, and skimmed over the last couple of pages, please excuse me if I have missed anything pertinent.
I am apalled at the 'unanimity' of DBC's decision, at mot's appeal, although I have to say that, given the make up of the appeal panel, I am not particularily surprised. Sadly, this tends to confirm my thoughts, as voiced on mot's first thread, that the 'decision' to postpone the appeal until after Christmas, was nothing short of a cynical ploy, on behalf of DBC, to avoid the negative publicity that such a result would have generated in the run up to the Christmas Festivities.
I concur totally with all of the messages, and offers, of support to mot, and am very saddened to see that this thread has attracted some negative comments - I hope that those posters will take the time to fully read mot's original thread, after which they may wish to revise their views.
With that off of my chest, so to speak, we did agree that, in the event of a negative outcome it should not be 'the end' of the matter - rather a 'new beginning' for mot and her family.
I would like to start by asking mot what the solicitor has reccomended as her 'next course of action'?
Surely by simply putting mot and the twins back into the private rental sector we will simply be playing into DBC's hands and 'removing' a problem that they are unwilling to deal with in a reasonable and compassionate manner.
Furthermore, this will, in my opinion, give DBC the 'green light' to treat other similarily deserving cases in the same cavalier manner.
Personal e-mails and letters will receive the same old 'we can not comment on individual cases' reply, so what, and there must be something, can we do?