Dbc 1 - Mot 0

bringmeshoes

mumoftwins wrote: »

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'.

MOT i agree that people should be able to apply for housing and have thier case looked at individually. i know from bitter experience how some councils treat homelessness. i was 20 when i was thrown out of home by my evil stepdad i went to the council with literally nowhere to go. i was told that as i didnt have kids, learning difficulties or was an asylum seeker then there was nothing they could do for me, even when i told them i would have to sleep on the streets i was still told tough luck there was nothng they could do, i could go to the ymca but if they had no space then i would be on the streets.
no two cases are the same and all deserve to be looked at individually as there are so many grey areas in each case. 'guidelines' are just that- guide not the bloody 10 commandements that have to be followed to the letter

mumoftwins

rog2 wrote: »

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?

Hi Rog,

Solicitor has to await her copy of the S202 letter which she should get tomorrow, then she will 'consider' the facts within it and decide if we can appeal on a point of law. She has already expressed her disgust that not only was the H of H leading the appeal but so was the Barrister who was supposed to be there only in the capacity of advising on points of law, but who kept interjecting and cross examined each witness - this she feels led to an 'unfair' hearing .

Briona's recent post with a link to DBC's article on Homelessness made me laugh! Yes, they are keeping homelessness down by seemingly 'pushing' people out into the private rented market!

sharon59

Just wanted to keep the thread up the ratings as feel its important as many people see it as possible and that good can come out of this!

rog2

mumoftwins wrote: »

Briona's recent post with a link to DBC's article on Homelessness made me laugh! Yes, they are keeping homelessness down by seemingly 'pushing' people out into the private rented market!

Yes - I found that article when I was researching DBC on your 'other thread'. A more cynical person than me might ask why DBC are doing this - they appear to be no less cash strapped than the majority of councils in the UK.

ampersand

Viktory, this is a considered reply to your post, with mot's knowledge.
################################
I have read both threads and I know my post is not going to be popular. However, should we shy away from saying something that is pertinent because it is not a popular viewpoint?
‘Pertinent’ is a subjective value term and fine if your comments are accurately based. Much of your ‘opposing’ comment is not so based.
‘Both’ Threads? - there are three, relating to mot, plus the Nomination for Post of the Month thread. I cannot see that you have read ‘eviction notice served’, and the relevant links inserted there, to write and think as you do.

I think not.
Let me begin by saying I have every sympathy for MOT and even more for her children. Kindly do not separate or appear to ‘grade’ them. You may not have intended this, but this does rather typify the looseness of much of your response.

It is an awful situation she is in and I sincerely hope that she finds somewhere secure to live, for her sake and that of her children. What concrete suggestions do you have? Mot needs such help.

However, 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/who was doing her job. I am aware of outrage and reaction hotly expressed, but you are inaccurate in your use of ‘vitriol’ and ‘hatred’.

I was horrified to see that e-mails from the Housing Officer were posted on here, complete with her name and even more horrifed to see allegations were made against a person that/who was simply doing her job. Please specify these allegations. Please show which emails contain such a name. It is easy to edit these out. The officials named are freely named and publicly accessible on DBC’s own site. Again, I feel you have not attentively read the ‘eviction notice served’ thread, where this concern was satisfactorily allayed long before Christmas.

We all post on here under a non/nom de plume, yet an employee of the council was not given the same courtesy. Which council employee has posted here? How do you know this? Everyone posting here uses a pseudonym. Are you sure this is what you mean?

I am amazed that the council and that employee in particular, has not taken action against this site. Had I been that employee, simply trying to do my job, I would have been seeking legal redress. Please specify what action you would envisage(I have to assume you are legally qualified to make such a statement). I am sure the Council’s own legal department would be grateful for your input[and I have deliberately included that as an example of the sort of needless, groundless comment you have written].

The council have strict guidelines and procedures that they have to adhere to. They failed to do so and then failed to accept evidence that such procedures recommended and further, failed to acknowledge its relevance. Some datelines were unmet or obfuscated. They also failed to strictly adhere to guidelines concerning Review conduct.

Housing is in such short supply they have to ensure that the people they do house are in genuine need and have not made themselves intentionally homeless. 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 - what ‘reason’? Again you have used language loosely. What access have you to their response? Have you read the S202 which mot's solicitors have yet to receive?
-
there is nothing now to suggest that she was mentally unstable and unable to pay her rent then. On what grounds do you make this statement?

The landlord has been referred to as an 'evil' landlord. I think this is unduly harsh. Are you a former or current tenant of this person? Were you present during the Appeal? Did you hear him speak? Do you know the allegations he made? Are you aware of points of his evidence having been proven deliberately false? Are you aware of statements submitted by former tenants concerning his behaviour and tactics?

He was not receiving rent for a property that he rented out in good faith. I think you need to have more facts in hand before expressing this opinion.

I would have been annoyed as well. The landlord has his own bills to pay and I am sure was, to some extent, dependant/ent on MOT's payments. On what evidence do you base this certainty?

The bullying, name calling and harrassment directed at the council by well meaning MSE'ers has seriously backfired on them.
Now, you come fully unstuck. If any part of the upholding of the decision against mot has been influenced as you say, it is clearly NOT correctly, impartially, fairly arrived at. You would suggest they have been driven by a fit of spleen. Please contact mot’s solicitors to show this as grounds for Judicial Review.

The decision made by the council has been upheld and I suspect that this is, in part, because of the bullying tactics on here and in local papers. As per previous response. Please name the papers, plural. We are only aware of the Hemel Hempstead Gazette giving coverage to mot’s plight. They chose to do this, as did 3 Counties Radio.

It simply made the council even more determined to stand it's/its ground. If the decision had been overturned, and MOT housed, then someone who genuinely had met all the citeria/criteria(typo only, I know) would have lost out -as opposed to? Be careful in your use of ‘genuinely’, please.


and that would have been so unfair on that person.
There are others on MSE that have been evicted - genuinely through no fault of their own and they are just getting on with it. Again - as opposed to? Again, be careful in your use of ‘genuinely’, please.

They don't have a huge fan club - distasteful and simply inaccurate, please see the sensible and restrained post 419 on this thread from Briona.
and they are taking responsibility for their own lives. Again, as opposed to whom?
By your own words, they, too, are posting on MSE. Why do you suppose that is? Martin set this site up and the DFW thread as a place of mutual support.

I applaud them. Why? I'm sure no-one here demurs, but why exclude mot?

Whilst I think the support MOT is getting is admirable, all of you involved in this need to be so careful what you say. We take note.

The council (and it's/its employees) are not evil & heartless.
That’s alright then(flippancy on my part)

They are doing an almost impossible job, regulated by strict guidelines laid down by the Government. Wish we’d known.

MOT, I wish you and your family the very best for the future. Thankyou for this at least; I believe you mean well.
################
Viktory, thank you for posting. As others have said, this is an open Forum.

I wish to commend mot for a calm, generous and extraordinarily magnanimous response to someone who wrote without having accurately read all the Threads.

I say this, as Viktory would not have let him/herself down with so many inaccuracies had he/she been more thorough and vigilant.
It was well-intentioned, but the balance it sought to offer would be better employed by DBC.
Viktory - look at your Dove of Peace photo and your location: In the Bosom of my Family.
Count your blessings and do not misjudge a situation you have neither grasped, nor currently experience.
All here will pray you never do go through what Life has thrown at mot during these last years. Blessings upon you and your family, viktory.
Many of us have experienced echoes and parallels of some elements of mot's situation - ALL can empathise.
This is posted without rancour - please accept it in the same spirit.

Triker

Eeeehh, dunno about you lot but I'm shattered and I'm not directly going through it...........hello to the magnificant seven.:hello:

Mot

Twins

IT

Ampersand

Floss2

Pania

and

Of course Saffronflowers xx

Viv

Thank you so much Ampersand for answering in such a detailed manner. People on here are, I personally think justifiably angry and devastated on MOTs behalf, and I think Viktory if you were as aware as you profess to be about the Landlords actions posted on here you would not think that evil is such an incorrect description.
If the council were as kind and caring as you would have us believe then they would not have set MOTs appeal and eviction for the same date on 3rd Jan but Ampersand has answered all your points so much better than I would be able to.
I noticed Viktory from reading your previous posts that you appear to be a council employee, I wonder if you are being disapproving for a reason or whether you delight in being contrary. Viv

Triker

and the landlord acted like a right nobhead

mumoftwins

Triker wrote: »

Eeeehh, dunno about you lot but I'm shattered and I'm not directly going through it...........hello to the magnificant seven.:hello:

Mot

Twins

IT

Ampersand

Floss2

Pania

erm, who've I left out

SaffronFlowers???

Viv

And Thank you Ampersand for writing one of your posts that I totally understood......... A rare moment Viv XX