Mamma e quattro bambini hanno ospitato 30 miglia di distanza in monolocale dopo che il Brent Council ha detto loro di “aspettare che gli ufficiali giudiziari li sfraggino”
di insomnimax_99
Mamma e quattro bambini hanno ospitato 30 miglia di distanza in monolocale dopo che il Brent Council ha detto loro di “aspettare che gli ufficiali giudiziari li sfraggino”
di insomnimax_99
8 commenti
Surely getting emergency/temporary housing should be a last resort and not a right to something good? As it’s just meant to put a roof over your head.
That’s standard procedure – what was she expecting a 4 bed and garden with a river running through it? There are people working full time that can’t afford to rent a studio flat that are subsidising hers. I’d move 100 miles for a free flat
Interestingly:
> “The Code of Guidance says a council should not require an applicant to remain in the property until a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce a possession order. The council should have provided interim accommodation to Mrs X before this happened.”
Kinda surprised to find this out, seeing as pretty much every council will tell people to remain in their properties until they are served with a possession order and evicted by bailiffs. Otherwise they class you as “voluntarily homeless” and offer very little support. Seems like every council is getting it wrong then.
Edit: The guidance:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67add3246e6c8d18118acd2f/Current_Homelessness_Code_of_Guidance_13_February_2025.pdf#page49
>6.35 The Secretary of State considers that where an applicant is:
>a. an assured shorthold tenant who has received a valid notice in accordance with section 21 of the Housing Act 1988;
>b. the housing authority is satisfied that the landlord intends to seek possession and further efforts from the housing authority to resolve the situation and persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to remain in the property are unlikely to be successful; and,
>c. there would be no defence to an application for a possession order;
>then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice, unless the housing authority is taking steps to persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found.
>6.36 The Secretary of State considers that it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord.
>__6.37 Housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation up until the point at which a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce an order for possession.__
Paragraphs 6.17-6.19 and 6.23 are also relevant here.
“In November 2023, Brent Council offered Mrs X the opportunity to join a list for housing outside of London, however, due to her children’s schools and her role as a carer for her parents and another child close to home she explained that this was not suitable. The council awarded Mrs X a band C priority in February 2024 and noted that a three-bedroom property was now needed as one of the children had moved out.”
It’s not like they didn’t have other options available before they got evicted. Typical case of chancers who tried to squeeze out the best deal for themselves.
Reminds me of the phrase… *”Beggers can’t be choosers”*.
If they want stability in location, start a 10-15 year plan where you go through college, maybe university, take a low paid graduate role for 5-8 years before you get the vocational experience, then command experienced £50-60k “big-bucks”.
Meanwhile, you have people in council housing that have a much improved situation from when they first applied, and could afford to pay market rent or buy, blocking housing for those genuinely in need. System is a shambles.
This is the issue with the housing benefits. People aren’t desperate for a home, they are desperate for luxury which they don’t have to work for. People earning upwards on 60-70k per year can barely afford to live comfortably in London, meanwhile a single mother or a family of 7 gets a free house they pay change for…
On the one hand, 30 miles is not a huge hardship and it is insane that not working gives you a free flat in a place few can afford.
On the other hand this is essentially a council turfing out problems onto another council.