oilyboots
Recent activity
Comments (22)
-
Comment on: Tough times
There is no need to feel sorry for the regulator - we should know by know that 'lite-touch' regulation eventually leads to collapse and/or those being regulated taking huge risks. (Look what happened to the finance sector and banks!).
Instead of spending resources/time/money on why the HCA should not intervene, maybe they should tell us more about the 19 cases received thus far, why these were not resolved 'locally' and why they chose not to intervene! Feels like old style Housing Corporation 'could be messy and controversial' non-intervention. -
Comment on: Tough times
There is no need to feel sorry for the regulator - we should know by know that 'lite-touch' regulation eventually leads to collapse and/or those being regulated taking huge risks. (Look what happened to the finance sector and banks!).
Instead of spending resources/time/money on why the HCA should not intervene, maybe they should tell us more about the 19 cases received thus far, why these were not resolved 'locally' and why they chose not to intervene! Feels like old style Housing Corporation 'could be messy and controversial' non-intervention. -
Comment on: Council wrong to refuse housing to dying man
'Shocking' is an understatement. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is 1/. probably one of richest boroughs in UK, 2/. being contemptible when it says it has 'scarce resources', 3/. if one reads the transcript it is clear that RBKC staff tried every which way to avoid taking any responsibility Mr de Almeida's care. They denied any breach of Human Rights Act 1998. Finally High Court found RBKC in breach of article 3 as well as 8. Article 3 is absolute and states 'No-one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. What does this suggest of RBKC? This man has a life-expectancy of 6 months - have we come to this!
-
Comment on: Fears welfare reforms will increase fast-track evictions
Quite why is this a surprise? Bottom line - is it a business or a 'not-for-profit people business? The tensions within social housing become more apparent as Con-dem policies start to bite!
I thought the pre-action protocol on rent arrears from October 2006 and the principle in the Civil Procedure Rules (litigation should be the last resort) + Lord Neuberger in Manchester CC-v-Pinnock meant that social landlords should not be using possession unless absolutely necessary?
Maybe more pro-active financial inclusion and prevention, more nuanced and sophisticated early intervention and demanding more focus on payment of rent from tenants and agencies like DWP, HB and HMRC would need less possession?
Ultimately evicting people for rent arrears does not get the money - it just increases homelessness - why is social housing still stuck with this out-of-date model? -
Comment on: Squatting criminalised as legal aid bill becomes law
Oh dear - more misunderstanding of the law! Did none of you guys read the letter in national press on 26 November 2011 about how this change of law is unnecessary because existing law is more than adequate? Letter signed by 150+ lawyers but included Andrew Arden QC, Professors Susan Bright and Caroline Hunter + others headlies as 'Media and politicians are misleading about law on squatters'.
Just because some media and politicians need diversion from real problems, doesn't mean you should believe them! The real problem is empty homes not homeless people.
Discussions (0)
oilyboots has not added any discussions yet.
Posts (4)
-
Posted in: being evicted
Definitely do not simply move out - go and get good face-to-face advice from CAB about your situation. Some posters above have suggested options - it may still not be too late for your mum to assign to you, if she still has capacity! Get social services adult team + GP + whoever has arranged her residential care to explain everything in writing. Also read Hammersmith & Fulham LBC-v-Clarke from Court of Appeal in 2000 to see why it might not be too late.
What will happen to cases like this when legal aid falls away following Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Act 2012? -
Posted in: Succession
You should urgently seek good local face-to-face advice from CAB and/or Shelter and/or a law centre. Strictly speaking the council might be correct in stating you have 'no right to succeed' as your mother succeded by the 'common law' notion of 'survivorship BUT as it's only a 2 bedroom house anyway and your have a 2 year old daugher - where would they house you anyway? Making you go through the homelessness - temporary accommodation - bidding through CBL just prolonges your anxiety, costs a fortune and achieves what?
If they do take you to court for possession you need a good advocate who could raise all kinds of 'proportionality' and Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 issues. There is a case called Solihull MBC-v-Hickin due at the Supreme Court in July 2012 which has very similar facts to your - read the case with your advocate.
Why don't the council do the sensitive and sensible thing as just give you the tenancy?
-
Posted in: transfers and the new affordable rent policy
If you have a 'secure fair rent tenancy' with the housing association, I assume your tenancy began before 15th January 1989? If you want to transfer within the same housing association and, as long as, there is no time lapse between the end of your current tenancy and the new one, then you will have to be given a secure fair rent tenancy of the new flat. Your protection comes from Schedule one Housing Act 1988 (look it up).
It is very worrying that the housing association at first thought they could give you a fixed term tenancy of 5 years and charge a so-called 'affordable' rent. Both actions are entirely unlawful. It is even more worrying that I suspect this will happen increasingly. Why are staff not trained on the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 and the regulator requirements in terms of what happens to existing tenants like yourself? Seek good local face-to-face advice from a CAB and/or law centre
-
Posted in: succession of a unsuitable property
Peter - not sure all the advice you have received is accurate!
1. If you succeeded to a secure tenancy of 3 bedroom house that it what you have succeeded to. If Pabody try to use Ground 16 check out wording in Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985. They CANNOT serve s.83 until at least 6 months has elapsed from date of your father's death. Then must serve within next 6 months (i.e. no later than 12 months after his death)
2. Using Ground 16 requires Peabody to prove' reasonableness' and provide 'suitable alternative accommodation'. There is lots of case law about what is 'reasonable' and what is 'suitable alternative accommodation.
3. Try www.bailii.org.uk and www.nearlylegal.co.uk for the following cases Wandsworth LBC-v-Randall Court of Appeal 8/11/2007 for what is reasonable in terms of under-occupying and other members of household
4. Bracknell Forest LBC-v-Green Court of Appeal 20/3/2009 for time spent in house and emotional attachment
5. After Manchester CC-v-Pinnock Supreme Court 3/11/2010 yours could well be a breach of Human Rights case especially Article 8. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't read the case or commentaries BUT a breach of Article 8 Human Rights Act is only going to work in an "execptional" case
6. If Peabody take you to court you need to argue that any suitable alternative accommodation needs to be a SECURE tenancy not assured and big enough for all your family and suitably located etc.
7 Definitely seek legal advice from a good housing specialist if and when Peabody serve the s.83 notice.
8. In the meantime get help to precisely layout the facts of your case and present to Peabody up through their hierarchy - escalate if your housing officer won't budge, check out their policies and procedures on succession, see if there is 'wriggle room' for the stair-lift and/or get letter from your back consultant and GP
Good luck