OFCOM decision Can't Pay special

[silverfox1961]

Not having watched the special where Ms Merritt was evicted along with her 11 year old daughter, it seems Havering Borough Council were not happy bunnies.

 

In this bulletin from 26/10/2015 OFCOM dismissed a complaint from HBC.

 

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb291/

 

(click the link at the bottom)

 

The report is at page 17

[citizenB]

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb291/Issue_291.pdf

 

This link takes you directly to the report - scroll down to page 17.

 

I didn't see the programme either.

 

You would have thought a Homeless department would be staffed for longer than just 9-5 ?

 

Well done that HCEO who very kindly ensured that the Mother and daughter were safe that evening.

 

Shame on Havering Borough Council.

[caledfwlch]

Shame they aren't and weren't so quick to defend the rights of the vulnerable they are supposed to look after!

 

I wonder if they have retrained their staff to accept the fact that the old days of a Bailiff not turning up for at least 2 months to perform an eviction are long gone, and most landlords are simply going via the HCEO route and getting it done in a couple of days.

 

The refusal to rehouse until the Bailiff turns up and performs the physical eviction is unlawful anyway, and I believe Councils have been told off for it years ago, but simply ignored, as usual "Leading Beyond Authority" aka "Doing what we want, not what the Law says"

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it also breaches Human Rights and who knows what other legislation, because they are forcing people to defy Court Orders, which is technically speaking, Contempt of Court, isn't it?

[brassnecked]

What a shocking council, at least in this case Paul Bohill really did go an extra mile for a vulnerable debtor, he had no duty to her whatsoever but did help despite having to evict her. The council certainly didn't cover itself in glory, and OFCOM were correct to dismiss their mealy mouthed appeal.

[Bailiff Advice]

What a shocking council, at least in this case Paul Bohill really did go an extra mile for a vulnerable debtor, he had no duty to here whatsoever but did help despite having to evict her. The council certainly didn't cover itself in glory, and OFCOM were correct to dismiss their mealy mouthed appeal.

 

I have been away the past two days and had not read this thread until this morning. Your above comments mirror my thoughts entirely.

[Peterbard]

 

The refusal to rehouse until the Bailiff turns up and performs the physical eviction is unlawful anyway, and I believe Councils have been told off for it years ago, but simply ignored, as usual "Leading Beyond Authority" aka "Doing what we want, not what the Law says"

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it also breaches Human Rights and who knows what other legislation, because they are forcing people to defy Court Orders, which is technically speaking, Contempt of Court, isn't it?

 

I admit to be quite heartened to hear the HCEO's comments. I understand that many will regard this as a PR exercise but the very fact that he makes these observations and that many are applauding him for it must be helpful.

 

 

I am not aware of any legislation which states the authority must rehouse the debtor before the EA calls , I would certainly like to see it if there is.

 

As regards human rights, there is a problem here also. The rights of the debtors "family life", has to weighed against the creditors rights to "peaceful enjoyment of his property".

It is as you say however unconscionable that this should be the case.

[caledfwlch]

I admit to be quite heartened to hear The HCEO's comments. I understand that many will regard this as a PR exercise but the very fact that he makes these observations and and that many are applauding him for it must be helpful.

 

 

I am not aware of any legislation which states the EA must rehouse the debtor before the EA calls , I would certainly like to see it if there is.

 

As regards human rights, there is a problem here also. The rights of the debtors "family life", has to weighed against the creditors rights to "peaceful enjoyment of his property".

It is as you say however unconscionable that this should be the case.

 

No, your misunderstanding. the Local Authority has the lawful duty to rehouse the debtor, and there refusal to do so until an EA comes to perform the physical eviction was pointed out by central government as unlawful years ago, but LA's still persist, even though it basically means they then have a massive urgent rush to rehouse someone, sometimes at 4pm because of their own refusal to follow law. This is nothing to do with the EA, or the Landlord. So the LA's are basically forcing tenants to breach Court Orders, by not leaving as and when ordered by the court, but waiting for the EA.

[Peterbard]

No, your misunderstanding. the Local Authority has the lawful duty to rehouse the debtor, and there refusal to do so until an EA comes to perform the physical eviction was pointed out by central government as unlawful years ago, but LA's still persist, even though it basically means they then have a massive urgent rush to rehouse someone, sometimes at 4pm because of their own refusal to follow law. This is nothing to do with the EA, or the Landlord.

 

No sorry it was a typo I have already corrected it.

 

Do you have any links to this ruling ?

[caledfwlch]

No sorry it was a typo I have already corrected it.

 

Do you have any links to this ruling ?

 

I don't think there was a "ruling" it was just becoming a problem as evictions began to rise, and Central Government pointed out to the LA's that they were "accidently" to give them the benefit of the doubt the rules and legislation governing their responsibilities when they have a duty to rehouse someone, the same sets of legislation etc that allows them to refuse a duty of care to people for becoming "intentionally" Homeless and so on.

[Peterbard]

Hmm probably wont be "illegal" then, unfortunate.

[ericsbrother]

It is about when a person becomes homeless and the councils duty to them under the law. Many councils wont consider a person homeless until they are actually evicted and this causes all sorts of problems for the tenant, the landlord and also bumps up costs enormously for both sides. However the person is homeless when the court says they have to leave and this makes the person effectively a squatter after that date and liable to criminal prosecution because the council wont obey the meaning of the statute.

make a few of these numbskulls vicariously liable for their actions and you will see a big change in the interpretation and application of all sorts of things in government. There again, pigs might fly

[caledfwlch]

Hmm probably wont be "illegal" then, unfortunate.

 

What is failing to do their Duty of Care under the law then? Unlawful/Illegal or just nothing wrong at all?

[Peterbard]

I am not here to defend the council, but I am sure that they would say they have a duty of care to everyone on the housing list and limited resources. Unless you think that all the people who need homes should sue.

[Peterbard]

Unless someone should find legislation or a case where it was proven that the authorities must provide housing or they are committing an offence, then I am afraid it is not illegal.

 

Please do not mention the children's act 1978 because that has absolutely nothing to do with housing.

[caledfwlch]

I am not here to defend the council, but I am sure that they would say they have a duty of care to everyone on the housing list and limited resources. Unless you think that all the people who need homes should sue.

 

No, AFAIK they have a Duty of Care to specific groups of people, where Housing is concerned. For example, A Single Parent with young or sick children, they don't have a DOC to everyone. If I turned up tomorrow in Birmingham, Brum CC Would not nominally have a DOC to me as I am not from there and have no long term family connections in the City, its possible that a couple health problems I have mean that they would, but probably not.

 

But in the situations where they DO have a legal DOC to a person facing eviction, they are breaching that Duty, such as a single parent with young or sick children.

 

I don't know what breaching a DOC is seen as - for example Council's have a DOC towards Children and their safety, which Rotherham Council recently and spectacularly failed to follow, was that failure unlawfu;?

[Peterbard]

It may influence the eligibility to available housing stock in accordance with the particular authorities individual [procedures, but that is all.

There may be a dty for the children or disadvantaged, but it is unlikely to require that the council rehouses the whole family. In any case there maybe any number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed, so it is again down to supply, you cannot hold an authority liable for a situation which is not of their making, unless of course you can show it is.

[Coughdrop]

Does this help?

 

https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/66379/Homelessness_factsheet.pdf

[Bailiff Advice]

The CRISIS website is another excellent website but this one is dedicated to single people. The following is a link to all their publications:

 

 

http://www.crisis.org.uk/policy.php?page=1

[brassnecked]

Thanks Coughdrop very useful leaflet.

 

Fact is councils will almost always wait until a family is on the street before doing anything.

[mikeymack2002]

Unless someone should find legislation or a case where it was proven that the authorities must provide housing or they are committing an offence, then I am afraid it is not illegal.

Please do not mention the children's act 1978 because that has absolutely nothing to do with housing.

 

 

This may help you DB see here >http://www.project17.org.uk/media/7763/s17-Factshet-May-13.pdf

 

'There is no legal definition of destitution. However, it is a high threshold (much higher than the test for welfare benefits). The test most commonly used is:

 

- No adequate accommodation; or

 

- Unable to meet basic living needs

 

If there is domestic abuse in the home, the accommodation is unlikely to be adequate.'

 

This is under the '89 Act not the '78 Act

 

For more information on the HRA and social landlords this is a good guidance >>http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/human_rights_at_home.pdf

 

With case law here >>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1004.html

 

For s17 see here >>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/17

 

 

Edited November 26, 2015 by citizenB
font sizing

[mikeymack2002]

A partial quote from that case

 

 

'I determine these issues as follows:

1. i) The duty of assessing the needs of homeless children falls primarily on the local authority (children's services authority) for the area in which the children are physically present (even if living there only temporarily) at the material time under section 17 of the CA 1989. In this case, this was LB Havering;
   
   

 

ii) The duty to provide interim accommodation for the children pending the outcome of that assessment is primarily a housing duty and will fall on the local authority (housing department) for the area in which the children are living when the duty arises (section 188 and section 190(1)/(2) of the HA 1996). The exercise of the local authority's functions in this respect is covered by section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 ("the CA 2004") which requires the housing authority to discharge its functions "having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children";

'

[mikeymack2002]

For a definition of being in need please see here >> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/52/section/189

[lookinforinfo]

The Council were probably lucky that it was OFCOM that was involved rather than the Local Government Ombudsman. But what arrogance to complain to OFCOM anyway when they

had done nothing to help the poor woman.

[Peterbard]

Seem to have sparked a debate, it is all good. MM the last quote refers to the child not the family and not the case which is the subject in question which involved the supply of accommodation before the eviction, also too many links find the relavant sections put them up and if they are relavant I will comment.

[mikeymack2002]

That job is for you to investigate and not for me to provide, you asked I provided. There is so much available to read even in the 2004 Act. If you follow the links and read what is available you will find all of the answers you require.

 

 

As far as the family unit this is covered in the links provided....

 

 

Failing to read makes us lazy this is how we learn!