Wiltshire canal boat family face eviction 'for not moving enough'

[Tumshie]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I don't know enough about it - only what you see / hear on TV "bad landlord / bad tenant" type programmes.

I only know this because I've worked as a volunteer helping people in these situation. There are quite a few differences in the help given because children are involved. 

 

ETA - not with CRT specifically just homelessness in general. 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Tumshie

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Tumshie said:

I only know this because I've worked as a volunteer helping people in these situation. There are quite a few differences in the help given because children are involved. 

 

 

And - maybe a difference above & below Hadrians Wall ?

[Richard10002]

28 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

 

Local authorities have a legal obligation to accommodate a homeless family if they have children.

 

As far as I'm aware they can't do anything until the the family is in a position where homelessness is inevitable but as soon as the are they will set in place emergency accommodation, usually this is a bed & breakfast or small cheap hotel, the children can't stay there more than two weeks so they then have to move them into semipermanent emergency accommodation, this is usually a furnished council house set a side for very short term lets until a permanent council house can be given to the family. So with in two to four months the family will have a permanent council house. 

 

I know council waiting lists are normally really really long but in the case of children becoming homeless this is the usual practice. 

 

As for rent being £7k pa a council house is usually a lot less than average rents in an area. A friend of mine has a lovely 3 bed semi detached in and expensive area and she only pays £70ish a week so about half of that £7k. 

 

 

I am in no way saying that this family made themselves homeless on purpose to get a council house. 

 

 

My experience of our two local councils is that they tell tenants that they will only rehouse them as homeless if they are evicted by bailiffs. If they leave at any time prior to this, (the possession date on the court order for example), they are deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless.

 

A couple of years ago, I read that this was completely against government guidelines, but who is going to test this when they would risk being truly homeless, and councils will abuse the system because they have to save money?

 

Thus, if Mr. & Mrs Holder are expecting/needing/hoping to be housed by the council, they probably have no choice other than to let events take their course to the point where they are physically evicted from the canal.

 

Presumably, neither of them work, and they have very good reasons why they don’t, or can’t.

[Tumshie]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

And - maybe a difference above & below Hadrians Wall ?

Not really in this case, though there are differences from council to council; housing and child welfare have pretty universal links country wide; for example a family could be made homeless in any Scottish council area and could start the process up here but if they had family ties to say Portsmouth could apply and carry over points to Hampshire council, it takes a bit of jiggery porkery but it's doable. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

My experience of our two local councils is that they tell tenants that they will only rehouse them as homeless if they are evicted by bailiffs.

You don't necessarily need bailiffs but yes that can be how it works and that is a good example of how it can vary from council to council, some will start to put things in place as soon as homelessness looks inevitable some will say they can't help till you are literally on the street. 

 

 

[The Welsh Cruiser]

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

My experience of our two local councils is that they tell tenants that they will only rehouse them as homeless if they are evicted by bailiffs. If they leave at any time prior to this, (the possession date on the court order for example), they are deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless.

 

A couple of years ago, I read that this was completely against government guidelines, but who is going to test this when they would risk being truly homeless, and councils will abuse the system because they have to save money?

 

Thus, if Mr. & Mrs Holder are expecting/needing/hoping to be housed by the council, they probably have no choice other than to let events take their course to the point where they are physically evicted from the canal.

 

Presumably, neither of them work, and they have very good reasons why they don’t, or can’t.

You're right, the local authority tells the tenant in question to effectively ignore the court order. It's a strange old world we live in; one arm of authority telling folk to ignore the ruling of a higher authority. 

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Tumshie said:

Not really in this case, though there are differences from council to council; housing and child welfare have pretty universal links country wide; for example a family could be made homeless in any Scottish council area and could start the process up here but if they had family ties to say Portsmouth could apply and carry over points to Hampshire council, it takes a bit of jiggery porkery but it's doable. 

 

 

You don't necessarily need bailiffs but yes that can be how it works and that is a good example of how it can vary from council to council, some will start to put things in place as soon as homelessness looks inevitable some will say they can't help till you are literally on the street. 

 

 

For clarity, in Manchester or Trafford, you wait for the bailiffs. 

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Tumshie said:

 

You don't necessarily need bailiffs but yes that can be how it works and that is a good example of how it can vary from council to council, some will start to put things in place as soon as homelessness looks inevitable some will say they can't help till you are literally on the street. 

 

Saw a programme a while back in which a single mother of two (in work but also receiving some benefits), who had been a good tenant, always paid her rent on time etc. was subject to a no-fault eviction as the landlord wanted to sell up. She couldn't find any other affordable property to rent in the area.  Council housing staff were sympathetic but said they could only help when she was actually evicted. So on the day the bailiffs were due to arrive she had to send the children to school not knowing where they would be going 'home' to that afternoon. A pretty brutal way to treat a family that until then had just about been managing!

[Tumshie]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Saw a programme a while back in which a single mother of two (in work but also receiving some benefits), who had been a good tenant, always paid her rent on time etc. was subject to a no-fault eviction as the landlord wanted to sell up. She couldn't find any other affordable property to rent in the area.  Council housing staff were sympathetic but said they could only help when she was actually evicted. So on the day the bailiffs were due to arrive she had to send the children to school not knowing where they would be going 'home' to that afternoon. A pretty brutal way to treat a family that until then had just about been managing!

I'm not denying that this can be the casein fact I have stated quite categorically that the exact process does vary from council to council - it does not always have to involve bailiffs, you do not always have to wait until you are turfed out on the street, it does depends entirely upon which council is processing your claim for housing, but the process is more or less the same or very similar and the end result is that the children end up housed. 

 

[Slim]

4 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

If the link is to believed, it’s a very small flat -

 

Sitting Room 
3' 1'' x 2' 7'' (0.91m x 0.61m)

 

Bedroom 
3' 02'' x 2' 76'' (0.91m x 0.61m)

 

 

That's not much less than the WINDOWLESS flats someone's recently got planning permission to convert in Watford. (actually 18 Sq M opening directly onto a busy service road with no pavement.

[Boater Sam]

6 minutes ago, Slim said:

That's not much less than the WINDOWLESS flats someone's recently got planning permission to convert in Watford. (actually 18 Sq M opening directly onto a busy service road with no pavement.

Well, they are used to the space in a narrowboat! Home from home.

 

 

If you think its bad being homeless with children, try unattached old male arriving back in the UK from time abroad. My friend who we repatriated last year faced being put in a hostel anywhere in the UK on arrival at Manchester Airport for an indefinite period. Not fun at 76 being in with druggies, drunks, criminals.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, Slim said:

That's not much less than the WINDOWLESS flats someone's recently got planning permission to convert in Watford. (actually 18 Sq M opening directly onto a busy service road with no pavement.

A landlords dream. 

Hence why some (me included) have stuck two fingers up to the the rob dogs and found something better. 

[MtB]

15 minutes ago, Goliath said:

A landlords dream. 

Hence why some (me included) have stuck two fingers up to the the rob dogs and found something better. 

 

Not really, sounds like a nightmare property to find a decent tenant for.

 

Rentals are a bit like boats. The property usually matches the occupier quite well. The scummy properties are occupied by the scummy tenants who don't pay the rent, grow cannabis, wreck the place, deal from there, don't pay the rent and generally make a bloody nuisance of themselves. The landlords usually match the properties too, but in a different way.

 

I get to see a lot of rentals in this job. There are lots of decent, honest and and fair landlords renting very nice properties too, to nice decent honest tenants, and often at no higher rents than the hovels funded by housing benefit. 

 

In addition even the decent and honest benefit-funded tenants can be infuriatingly unreliable tenants, paying their rent as they get it from the council, who dick them about royally by suspending their benefits payments every time their circumstances change, (e.g. by them getting a job, or a better job, or a pay rise, or a pay cut. etc etc) so they simply cannot pay their rent on time. This is the root reason good landlords tend to shun benefits-funded tenants. 

 

Rambling off topic here really....

 

 

 

  

[MtB]

Anyway getting back on topic...

 

If Mr and Mrs Holder's goal in all this was to jump the waiting list and land themselves cheap council housing, then whining to the BBC about how unfair it is and enlisting the help of the NBTA is hardly likely to be their best move. They should just keep quiet and wait for craning day, then present themselves to the council as homeless.

 

The flaw in this plan is the council might declare them intentionally homeless. I dunno is they are allowed to do this when children are intentionally homeless too, by the actions of their parents. 

 

Does anybody?

 

[LadyG]

The eighteen year old is an adult, like the mother and father, presumably they could all get themselves a job, and rent a flat? 

I've not a lot of sympathy, having worked part time from age thirteen. Full time after leaving college age 22. I could not afford a "gap year" I don't see the point.

Edited September 1, 2019 by LadyG

[mrsmelly]

29 minutes ago, LadyG said:

The eighteen year old is an adult, like the mother and father, presumably they could all get themselves a job, and rent a flat? 

I've not a lot of sympathy, having worked part time from age thirteen. Full time after leaving college age 22. I could not afford a "gap year" I don't see the point.

I worked full time from age 15, non of you cushy college for me ya know  Trouble today is people expect to leave school aged 32 and retire aged 45 with a huge pension.

[Chewbacka]

2 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I worked full time from age 15, non of you cushy college for me ya know  Trouble today is people expect to leave school aged 32 and retire aged 45 with a huge pension.

With a gap year at the start, and a sabbatical year out every 5th year.....

[NB Esk]

 

I went to something similar to College.......Colliery.

 

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Not really, sounds like a nightmare property to find a decent tenant for.

 

Rentals are a bit like boats. The property usually matches the occupier quite well. The scummy properties are occupied by the scummy tenants who don't pay the rent, grow cannabis, wreck the place, deal from there, don't pay the rent and generally make a bloody nuisance of themselves. The landlords usually match the properties too, but in a different way.

 

I get to see a lot of rentals in this job. There are lots of decent, honest and and fair landlords renting very nice properties too, to nice decent honest tenants, and often at no higher rents than the hovels funded by housing benefit. 

 

In addition even the decent and honest benefit-funded tenants can be infuriatingly unreliable tenants, paying their rent as they get it from the council, who dick them about royally by suspending their benefits payments every time their circumstances change, (e.g. by them getting a job, or a better job, or a pay rise, or a pay cut. etc etc) so they simply cannot pay their rent on time. This is the root reason good landlords tend to shun benefits-funded tenants. 

 

Rambling off topic here really....

 

 

 

  

Not just rambling

more of a nasty rant

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Not just rambling

more of a nasty rant

 

Just a natural response to you spiteful comment about landlords. 

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Just a natural response to you spiteful comment about landlords. 

 

 

 

Spiteful?

Not spiteful. 

 

Hateful would be a better word. 

 

[zenataomm]

27 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I worked full time from age 15, non of you cushy college for me ya know  Trouble today is people expect to leave school aged 32 and retire aged 45 with a huge pension.

I left school at 15 on the Friday, I started work on the Monday.  

I had a gap weekend.

During the following 39 years I was made redundant 7 times. I changed my career direction 6 times, ending up self employed.

[Mike Todd]

21 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Mr Holder said he had travelled 17.7 miles, moving every two weeks, and had pictures to prove it.

 

Then he is an idiot.  Half an hour's further cruising over the last 6 months would have let him comply with CRT's minimum acceptable range.  And let him keep his family home roughly where he wanted it.

 

20 miles is a day's cruise for me.  A short day.

But remember that range is not the same as distance travelled. 17.7 miles travel could be achieved by moving around half a mile up and back every two weeks. Range is then half a mile. But in any event the requirement is to convince the Board that he is engaged in a bona fide navigation for the period, ie a year. It may well be that the Board was unconvinced. There is no requirement to travel a range of 20 miles, or any range, but CaRT  have advised that a range less than 20 miles is unlikely to convince them.

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, Tumshie said:

 

Local authorities have a legal obligation to accommodate a homeless family if they have children.

 

As far as I'm aware they can't do anything until the the family is in a position where homelessness is inevitable but as soon as the are they will set in place emergency accommodation, usually this is a bed & breakfast or small cheap hotel, the children can't stay there more than two weeks so they then have to move them into semipermanent emergency accommodation, this is usually a furnished council house set a side for very short term lets until a permanent council house can be given to the family. So with in two to four months the family will have a permanent council house. 

 

I know council waiting lists are normally really really long but in the case of children becoming homeless this is the usual practice. 

 

As for rent being £7k pa a council house is usually a lot less than average rents in an area. A friend of mine has a lovely 3 bed semi detached in and expensive area and she only pays £70ish a week so about half of that £7k. 

 

 

I am in no way saying that this family made themselves homeless on purpose to get a council house. 

 

 

Being required to take the boat out of CaRT waters does not, in itself, make them homeless. That can still live on it if, for example, they can find someone to let them plant their boat on their land, for an amount they are prepared to pay. They might also discover what happens if they then fail to make the agreed payments.

[Arthur Marshall]

It does come back to the fact that people like to stay in places they know and have connections. Work isn't as easy to come by these days either as it wss fifty or even twenty years ago, so they tend to want to hang on to it if they've got it. Lack of reasonably priced housing is a political choice made by our political masters for their own reasons. It's bound to spill over onto our wet bits - every time I go past the unlicensed scruffy boat that some poor sod is living on on my local bit of pond, I do try to temper my initial harrumph about blasted freeloaders by remembering that everyone has to be somewhere and should have some kind of roof. And that I've served a bit of time sleeping in bus stations and park shelters myself. As well as on a leisure mooring in the boat. 

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Spiteful?

Not spiteful. 

 

Hateful would be a better word. 

 

You've had some bad experiences then?