Wednesday, 23 April 2014



Recent activity

Comments (225)

  • Comment on: Food for thought

    mfm's comment | 17/02/2014 8:49 am

    James Rennie | 09/02/2014 8:23 am

    "From where I stand soup runs really serve to allow faith groups to be seen to be administering A deity's work, for the benefit of the administrator - it makes them feel good. Please cease this unhelpful practice and leave it to the professionals."

    Leave it to the professionals?!

    The "professionals" regularly fail to find large amounts of homeless people right under their noses. One outreach group told me a year ago that they had no resources to help the individual I referred to them for help and they didn't bother going out to look for him.

    The figures have always been well out, only reporting those that get registered on the CHAIN system whilst the rest end up as the hidden homelesss. This included individuals that actually slept on the door step of the homeless charity I used to work for.

    soup runs stop people ending up in A+E which would cost the state more. I went out with several soup runs that were run by the likes of nuns and well organised local charities and they were providing an excellent service to desperate people.

    My experience of working in homeless charities was that there were a large amount of people that wanted to make themselves feel better by working for charities that weren't necessarily helpig people and who rarely if ever challenged the people that funded them like local councils that put pressure on them to keep figures down.

    James - the faith groups do it for nothing to help the poor. you do it for a wage and regularly deny the truth when it is laid out for you.

  • Comment on: Seven in 10 homeless off streets after No Second Night Out expansion

    mfm's comment | 13/02/2014 8:45 am

    when i worked for a homeless charity other charities were not acknowledging that many of the people I was working for were street homeless.
    As long as they don't find you your not counted.
    the real issue here is that as long as these figures come from charities rather then government no one questions them as we have a naive view of how charities work.
    and yet many of the charities involved get their money from local councils.

  • Comment on: PRS landlord to evict tenants on housing benefit

    mfm's comment | 06/01/2014 11:54 am

    the way he is going about it isn't nice but essentially he is running a business and if he keeps finding that people on benefits can't pay their way then no one can complain if he doesn't want people on benefits as he isn't in it to help the poor - that's what the state is for.

    In a way, by doing this, it may be what is needed as it will put the local councils under immense pressure as they will not be able to cope and then they will go back to the government to tell them to stop these benefit cuts.

  • Comment on: Council sends 'threatening' Christmas card

    mfm's comment | 23/12/2013 2:17 pm

    shouldn't much of the outrage be directed at the government and not the council?
    Whilst it might be insensitive, there will be loads of people in arrears in january. the council, like all others under localism are being left to spread the little money they are given thinly whilst being given nothing to support the vulnerable.

    This is exactly what the government want people to do= blame the councils who are mainly firefighting despite the fact that many of them disagreed with the level of cuts.

  • Comment on: Paying fairly

    mfm's comment | 08/11/2013 11:37 am

    I would like our HA to take this up but I think it will be very difficult to persuade them because as much as there is some evidence that staff retention improves there is little or no clear evidence of the financial benefits for an organisation and I don't think I can persuade them if the figures aren't clear..
    Anyone have any useful information on this?!

View all comments

Discussions (10)

  • Legality - landlord requesting two months rent in advance instead of deposit

    Posts: 7

    In Ask the Experts | 05/10/2012 10:30 am

    Someone I work with has found private shared accommodation. The agent wants 2 months rent in advance - 1 month up front and 1 month for the end of the tenancy.
    I've looked this

  • logging in

    Posts: 2

    In Website feedback | 01/05/2012 12:58 pm

    I'm not sure whether its just me but if I keep needing to log in to the website to read articles.  is this a problem?  I'm hoping so otherwise it will make me reluctant to use this site

  • HB - what is attendance?

    Posts: 0

    In Legal debate | 12/03/2012 4:38 pm

    stupid question probably but what does "attendance" include in regards to housing benefit.  its a question the benefits department ask in relation to claims but they won't actually explain ex

  • National Planning Policy Framework

    Posts: 5

    In Policy forum | 28/02/2012 9:05 am

    I’ve been reading the thoughts of one of the Inside Housing regulars about the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This document appears to be a complete disaster and yet there

  • S21 notice given in advance of any problems

    Posts: 10

    In Policy forum | 19/02/2012 9:19 pm

    Hi All
    Is it appropriate for a housing association to issue S21 notices the minute tenants move in purely to make it easier for them in the event of any problems arising and eviction proce

View all discussions

Posts (35)

  • Posted in: How about a POLL on the restriction of comments to articles?

    mfm's post | 18/09/2012 9:11 am

    Tom is right to a point. I rarely look at the comments section these days as I already know what many of the regulars will say as there is a lot of repetition of ideological point scoring which doesn't really add to the debate.

    There needs to be a bit more editing of our own comments for this section to remain - after all, in the end this site is free but there is a cost to the publisher for monitoring it..

  • Posted in: HOUSING Allocations and Notices

    mfm's post | 26/07/2012 12:47 pm

    Was wondering if this is any help as it is an incredibly easy to read document:

    its guidance only, unlike the housing acts but could be very useful. it states in regards to eviction that:

    In anycase where a housing authority decides that it would be reasonable for an applicant to
    continue to occupy their accommodation after a valid notice has expired – and
    therefore decides that he or she is not yet homeless or threatened with homelessness –
    that decision will need to be based on sound reasons which should be made clear to
    the applicant in writing (see Chapter 6 for guidance on housing authorities’ duties to
    inform applicants of their decisions). The Secretary of State considers that where a
    person applies for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation,

    (a) the person is an assured shorthold tenant who has received proper notice in
    accordance with s.21 of the Housing Act 1988;

    (b) the housing authority is satisfied that the landlord intends to seek possession;

    (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 the
    accommodation beyond the date given in the s.21 notice, unless the housing
    authority is taking steps to persuade the landlord to withdraw the notice or allow
    the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to
    provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found.

    In regards to DV I’m not sure I understand the question. I understand it to be the case that you can present anywhere if you are fleeing threats of violence so would have thought the person can present to any other borough but is it the case that they are “fleeing” violence as well as being evicted?  By that I mean, if they weren’t being evicted would they have still left the property as any threats were made close to the property?

  • Posted in: The rise of the private rented sector

    mfm's post | 18/07/2012 2:22 pm

    I've told him it all and been exhaustive in challenging him over the past two years. What has happened is that he has changed tack and decided that the taxpayer is "subsidising" people who are getting large amounts of housing benefit and that this shouldn't continue.

    He also said that he met someone who was forced to move because of the housing benefit cap and "he was fine with it". he however always goes on to state that this is the only way to reduce the deficit which means he refuses to consider the facts.

    the same lib dem MP in a reply to one question asked me: "who are these people in poverty?"

    There has to be many different lines of attack and the stats are only one - although a very important one, and I really appreciate your research as I will use it in my next discussion with him.

  • Posted in: The rise of the private rented sector

    mfm's post | 17/07/2012 2:13 pm

    "the obvious example I give must have been foreseeable."

    Lot's of it is forseeble but this appears to be entirely ideological so unfortunately it requires much more of us who oppose it.  it requires coordinated campaigns/protests such as those that have been succesful by the members of 38 Degrees which includes such a broad church.

    I have been discussing the issue of the housing benefit cap with my mp (amongst other things). i provided research from everyone including the Mayors Offices, charities, independent research organisations such as Cambridge Centre for Housing Research and he ignored it all and refused to answer my main claim which is that - if you put the moral arguments to one side - making tens of thousands of people homeless and forcing them out of london to areas where there aren't jobs or support networks will COST the state.

    its like the Enlightenment never happened.

    being ideological, quoting facts only does so much. broad campaigns are needed to oppose much of this.

  • Posted in: The rise of the private rented sector

    mfm's post | 16/07/2012 2:30 pm

    I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that this isn't all some masterplan by the Tories but that they simply do not know what they are doing.

    Rather than it being a grand conspiracy, whats actually happening is that are society is now so divided and the elite so secure in being able to protect jobs for themselves regardless of whether they have any talent that many get jobs without experience. they are so far removed from the life of ordinary people they simply can't comprehend what the reality is for the average person.

    as a result, they make decisions which are so stupid that they do not realise that it will actually damage the chances of the Tories getting back in.

    it all comes down to a simplistic belief amongst the rich that they got where they are through talent and hard work and that by reducing the state and letting everyone sort themselves out, everything will work out fine and they will keep their position not through rigging things but because they genuinely believe they have achieved everything through hard work.

View all posts

About My Public Profile

This is your public profile where others can view your details and your comments, discussions and posts.

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters