Saturday, 28 March 2015

mfm

mfm

Recent activity

Comments (233)

  • Comment on: Thank you for helping

    mfm's comment | 23/02/2015 8:23 am

    thanks. do you mean we've helped you by increasing the amount of people we're trying to evict who are struggling to cope with the benefit cuts?

  • Comment on: 6,000 people claiming universal credit

    mfm's comment | 17/07/2014 4:35 pm

    that's a hell of a lot of people.

  • Comment on: Government attempting to slash 'incorrect' homelessness decisions

    mfm's comment | 15/05/2014 2:44 pm

    to be fair, as noted above, this isn't about people being poorly trained. This is generally about an unwritten culture, especially in London, where housing workers use any tactic possible to avoid accepting a duty.

    Its not that they do not know that the advice is wrong, its that they are gatekeeping on a grand scale. whilst this is clearly wrong in every sense, its also the case that many councils have no housing as the government aren't building any so they are left in an impossible position.

  • Comment on: Annexes replace B&B stays for homeless

    mfm's comment | 02/05/2014 11:21 am

    what exactly is wrong with trying to protect the growing number of people forced to rent instead of buy by giving them some kind of protection from eviction?

    it works in Germany and means residents have more of a sense of belonging and therefore take more care of their properties

  • Comment on: Moral dilemma over living wage

    mfm's comment | 01/05/2014 12:33 pm

    Question is, does paying the living wage include contracted staff that do not work directly for a company such as cleaners?

View all comments

Discussions (12)

View all discussions

Posts (37)

  • Posted in: Homeless occupant not being assisted by council

    mfm's post | 09/01/2015 11:33 am

    HI

    I work for an ALMO. An occupant has to move out as his brother (our tenant) terminated the tenancy and the occupant cannot have the tenancy assigned to him.

    The council who we work for and are effectviely part of are stating that they will not take a homeless application until we have an order from a court.

    is there not at least good practise councils should work to to stop this happening?  the tenant clearly has no right to remain and the tenancy ends next monday.

    by making him stay we have to go through a court case and the occupant incurs costs he will probably not be able to afford to pay. this means that if he gets rehoused in the private sector in debt, he will be at risk of homelessness not long after.

    either way, we as an ALMO are unlikely to recoup the court and rent costs or the man hours which effectively comes out of the councils pocket so nobody wins by us going down this route.

    Any advice welcome!

  • Posted in: HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANT FAILURE

    mfm's post | 06/01/2015 12:51 pm

    im not clear on what the question is and even less clear as to whether anyone is actually answering it?!

  • 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:

    http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/152056.pdf

    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,
    and:

    (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;
    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 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.

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

IH Subscription